Spend Money On Keeping A High-Miler On The Road, Or...?

[Sasha94]

Originally Posted by volvorocks

Your 6k Volvo plus 2k repairs stands you at 8k and then it has to be worth around 3k yes after 36 months, meaning a total outlay of 5k.

You wouldn't lease an entry level XC60 for 8k, more like 12k over 36 months so around 7k more expensive over the same period. Whether thats worth it is a personal thing I suppose,possibly is for a new no hassle car, but some may disagree.

Regards

I meant 2 years! Stupid autocorrect :O

If I had the money I would say it was worth it to have a brand new car over a 153k mile 8 year old one so the £7k on top would be worth it IMO, someone has to buy the new cars to supply the people who don't buy them with used stock.

I actually found some cheaper PCP deals with dealer contributions than leases on the now ageing XC60 as leases can be cheap if you're not bothered about the car, depreciation proof German brands tend to be cheaper to lease. Currently my local dealer is doing the D4 XC60 Manual R-Design from £299 per month with £1500 down and free servicing which is 0% APR so as VR says just under £12k over 3 years and the V60 XC is £249 per month but it's a shame I don't want either, the 60 series cars just aren't suitable for us. If the XC90 finance deals are anything to go buy then it'll be a while before I can afford to be in the replacement I'd like which is a V90 XC when they appear but it'll be very much down the line.

I prefer a PCP to a lease as its so much more flexible, you can sell at any time or buy outright at the end with the price clearly stated from the outset and you can trade in the car anywhere or even sell it to WBAC and if you're in positive equity you can bank the cash. If you trade at the end and the car is worth less than the GMFV then the loss is the finance company. It's much more flexible

Perhaps it will be a Jag next then...

[john.wigley]

Originally Posted by GMcL

While that model has worked for you to date we are now fast approaching the ten year anniversary of 23rd March 2006 when all cars moved to the current taxation system.
If you like petrol engines how is the £500+ annual road tax going to sit with an accountant ? Diesel has its problems now with a lot of people still waiting to see what the fallout of VW and the US is going to be. No one is going to throw a chunk of money at something which might be unsellable at best and untaxable at worst in the next 12-18 months.

Because it doesn't affect us I was unaware that Road Tax had risen to this level. I can see that this might deter people from buying cars at the lower end of the price range, where it represents a much greater proportion of the total cost of ownership, than it would on a new car.

Conversely, if you buy a new car costing £50K today it will very likely be worth around £20K three years hence. Whilst the cost of Road Tax might hurt, it is still much less than the depreciation. Secondly, not all of us have the means - or the desire, even if we have - to buy a new car. I therefore believe that there will always be a market among those of cognisance for cars such as well kept 900 series.

Regards, John.

[DaveNP]

This conversation seems to have moved from the 'high miler' (presumably old) end of the car ownership spectrum to the brand new with various finance options versus nearly new end. Between those extremes there's the consideration of what is having a 'new' car worth to someone both in terms of it's appeal parked on the driveway and the confidence in it's reliability, against not having a lot of cash tied up in a depreciating asset, I think those questions are always going to be about the personality of the driver more than the financial implications.
A trickier question is spend out on a high miler or replace it with a middle aged middle miler?

[Sasha94]

I'd always say it's better the devil you know, so many cars are flimsy these days and require expensive maintenance at regular intervals which can quickly outweigh the initial purchase price. It also raises the question what is a middle or high miler?? Would a 10 year old 100,000 mile car be high or middle miles these days? It's mid to me but that's where big services, clutches, dual mass flywheels and egr valves start to fail, a £300 egr valve on a £1200 10 year old car isn't going to go down well, though a similar repair on a £5000 car isn't so bad.

I'd rather have a big miles newer car at a low price then spend the same money on an older lower miles car. For example I much prefer my £5700 140k mile 2008 P3 XC70 to a 2005 P2 XC70 with 70k which would have still been about the same price. A 70k mile 2008 XC70 could easily fetch £9-9.5k with 70k on the clock still so my car was a bargain and I do so many miles I don't value a low mileage.

Saying that we have a 2003 Peugeot 206sw 2.0 HDi runabout with 45k miles on the clock but that was a £400 car and I'd have bought it with 145k on the clock, the mileage was purely incidental. If it breaks it'll be broken up like the last banger we had because I have neither the time nor inclination to repair anything other than a minor problem.

[Dirty Rooster]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Because it doesn't affect us I was unaware that Road Tax had risen to this level. .

Some of our Volvo bricks are approaching the "classic" age where road tax (correct me if I'm wrong) disappears.

[Prufrock]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Because it doesn't affect us I was unaware that Road Tax had risen to this level. I can see that this might deter people from buying cars at the lower end of the price range, where it represents a much greater proportion of the total cost of ownership, than it would on a new car.
Regards, John.

For a business user 50% of the RFL would be a business expense.

From 1 April 2010, for new car buyers, especially the dirtier cars (band I upwards) the first registration tax could be an issue - e.g for a band J petrol (CO2 = 186-200) car the first registration RFL is £490, and then £265: this is paid in the overall purchase price so isn't the issue you might think.

The Chancellor is encouraging drivers to choose cars with low C02 (even though C02 isn't the issue) and zero tax bandings, he has to get his tax back somehow!

I've been lucky throughout my career, I have had company cars, some quite exotic, so depreciation hasn't been a concern - I've bought a second home with what I would have spent on depreciating car payments, plus I've enjoyed owning some very nice classics and motorcycles.

If I had to buy a car? Quality in everything so it would probably be a Lexus around 5/6 years old with one owner and a book full of Lexus dealer stamps.

I'd hang on to at least one of my classic Mercedes though.

Jon.

[Prufrock]

Originally Posted by Dirty Rooster

Some of our Volvo bricks are approaching the "classic" age where road tax (correct me if I'm wrong) disappears.

Both my classic Volvos are 30 years old and not RFL free for some time, my BMW is 40 and free in two years - big deal! Thought I should say something about the 740s, happy to spend small amounts to keep them running to a high standard - they owe me very little, and the only moan is that the RFL is more costly than the (fully comp) insurance.

Must do some thinning out...

Jon.

[Sasha94]

Originally Posted by Prufrock

The Chancellor is encouraging drivers to choose cars with low C02 (even though C02 isn't the issue) and zero tax bandings, he has to get his tax back somehow

Not true anymore; from 2017 every car is taxed at £140 per year, if the cost is over £40,000 it's £500 for 5 years then back to £140 for evermore.

Doesn't incentivise low emission cars for uk markets anymore as there is no longer a tax incentive. You could buy a 5.0 V8 Mustang and if you don't tick any option boxes it'll squeak into the £140 per year bracket from new whereas today's 5.0 Stang is £1100 first year rfl then £505 per year. Eco cars no longer benefiting here and I know CO2 isn't the biggest issue but having no rfl incentive for any kind of emission is a retrograde step IMO.

[john.wigley]

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Both my classic Volvos are 30 years old and not RFL free for some time, my BMW is 40 and free in two years - big deal! Thought I should say something about the 740s, happy to spend small amounts to keep them running to a high standard - they owe me very little, and the only moan is that the RFL is more costly than the (fully comp) insurance.

Must do some thinning out...

Jon.

If we had kept the original 25 year rolling exemption, they would have been, Jon! I think that it is now 40 (?) years before a car becomes eligible for zero tax classification, and I believe there are inconsistencies across Europe in this respect. Given the amount of tax already paid, and the small number of cars over 25 years old, I think there is a strong case for reintroducing the lower threshold.

Incidentally, isn't it a misnomer to refer to this tax as an RFL nowadays? It has long since ceased to be used for the provision and maintenance of our roads!

Regards, John.

P.S. My experience regarding insurance on my 745 was the same as yours. Fully Comp insurance typically £120 - £140 p.a. for two named drivers. J.

[57RKL]

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Firstly, where is your evidence/experience that 700 interiors fall apart in old age ?

Second point, your claims were not supported by any evidence except your desire to score points. Third, anyone (clearly not you) who works with, or is familiar with the DVLA data will know that it is full of anomalies. Fourth point, I suggest you read John Wigley's response to your post(s), which you've conveniently ignored.

I have possibly the oldest 745 in the UK that was bought near new by my Wife's Dad (I do apologise for the repetition) but it was not left to me in old age...he gave it to me in 2010 when I gave him my 2003 V70 as he needed a replacement (make of that what you will).

I have known this 745 from when he bought it - at the time I was working with Volvo running their contract hire fleet (which included many 700s among other things) and working with their fleet customers until 1993; this is what gives me some authority - I was driving a red 744T at this time.

None of the 740s I have actually owned (6) have had their interiors fall apart, they've all had few owners and interiors have been undamaged - just like the 700s I currently have. Two 700s (1 X 744, 1 X 745) once owned by me are now owned by VOC/forum members.

The 940s have the same basic engines so they're not superior, the turbocharged versions make the 940 more desirable for some (not me). You've actually agreed with me on one thing I've banged on about for some time; and that is the future survival rate of 744s over 745s.

It is a great shame that you're unable to put together an argument with being so belligerent.

Jon
700/900 Register Keeper VOC.

My ownership experience ? Horrible interior including soaking wet dangling headlining. Plastics broken everywhere, no not wear and tear, cracks all over dashboard, electrics hopeless, no petrol gauge half of the time. Please don't tell me my car was unloved / workvan again.

Re DVLA evidence, they are conspiring against 700 series (only) numbers year on year ? LOL

The number of 700s at VOC shows last year, 2- 3 ? (one was yours)

Your cars (again ) Yawn.

940 engines. Bosch LH2.4 Engine management, thicker stronger rods, Piston oil squirters, zero piston slap, (They are superior)

My Experience, 85 240 GL Est, 89 240 GL Est, 88 740 GLE Sal 92 940s Est ( all new Company cars 100k miles approx. each) about 10 old RWD Volvos of which I still own 4.

Belligerent ? me ? Pots and kettles