Pcp
03-23-2015 | 11:05 PM
#11
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 22,739
Likes: 659
From: Nottingham
I knew a chap who was tied to ford like this. He wasnt the brightest.
He was driving a focus which was costing him more than my S2 but somehow at the time it was always an exit bill for him, maybe mileage? And he couldnt afford it.
Kept my S for 13 years so far
New cars dont really interest me, anywhere is a better place for your money 9 times out of 9.01. Maybe MB will turn a profit on that GT4 if he can bring himself to sell it
He was driving a focus which was costing him more than my S2 but somehow at the time it was always an exit bill for him, maybe mileage? And he couldnt afford it.
Kept my S for 13 years so far
New cars dont really interest me, anywhere is a better place for your money 9 times out of 9.01. Maybe MB will turn a profit on that GT4 if he can bring himself to sell it
03-23-2015 | 11:46 PM
#12
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,653
Likes: 134
From: In the land of pies and pasties
I think many of us have been there though, buying used that were £35k-£50k. They get issues that warranties sort out, buying an old "M" can become a wallet busting nightmare. As for 10yr old Jags versus a new R, live a litte?
Tieing in for 2 years is nothing, it's affordable and the end result is you've had a new car you could never afford to buy outright. Saying £50k cars aren't worth £50k is rather silly. They ARE worth £50k and normally represent excellent value for money against, say, supercar opposition. So it does boil down to income and running costs in the end. Playing the waiting game on depreciation, I understand, is a skill but with market chanegs, can be a trust of luck. I'm supposing there will be many that wait until the car they were always promising themselves, gets to 4 and a half years old, still with warranty to extend, then pounce and buy then. As an example, take a 987 Boxster - known for its IMS issue. A beautiful car ruined by an engine flaw. It needs warranty.
I could never afford to walk into BMW, point at the latest M4 and say "yes please, I'll sign here". In fact, nor could I lease, it's out of my affordability range. I'd also ignore it in 10 years time when its being pitched at £10k - you could spend £5k on it in 2 years ironing out daft problems and mega consumables. So in fact, I'd still need the similar income at the beggining of the food chain when it was new.
Here's another one though - WHY do we have to buy fast cars, when for 99% of the time, on our roads, we alledge to obey speed limits? So why put your income through hell and earth, just to make you feel better that you have 3,4 or 500bhp rather than utilise a nippy, easier to live with 200bhp car?
Answer : testosterone
Tieing in for 2 years is nothing, it's affordable and the end result is you've had a new car you could never afford to buy outright. Saying £50k cars aren't worth £50k is rather silly. They ARE worth £50k and normally represent excellent value for money against, say, supercar opposition. So it does boil down to income and running costs in the end. Playing the waiting game on depreciation, I understand, is a skill but with market chanegs, can be a trust of luck. I'm supposing there will be many that wait until the car they were always promising themselves, gets to 4 and a half years old, still with warranty to extend, then pounce and buy then. As an example, take a 987 Boxster - known for its IMS issue. A beautiful car ruined by an engine flaw. It needs warranty.
I could never afford to walk into BMW, point at the latest M4 and say "yes please, I'll sign here". In fact, nor could I lease, it's out of my affordability range. I'd also ignore it in 10 years time when its being pitched at £10k - you could spend £5k on it in 2 years ironing out daft problems and mega consumables. So in fact, I'd still need the similar income at the beggining of the food chain when it was new.
Here's another one though - WHY do we have to buy fast cars, when for 99% of the time, on our roads, we alledge to obey speed limits? So why put your income through hell and earth, just to make you feel better that you have 3,4 or 500bhp rather than utilise a nippy, easier to live with 200bhp car?
Answer : testosterone
03-24-2015 | 01:16 AM
#13
Banned
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 31,755
Likes: 69
From: Survivalist enclave
I think many of us have been there though, buying used that were £35k-£50k. They get issues that warranties sort out, buying an old "M" can become a wallet busting nightmare. As for 10yr old Jags versus a new R, live a litte?
Tieing in for 2 years is nothing, it's affordable and the end result is you've had a new car you could never afford to buy outright. Saying £50k cars aren't worth £50k is rather silly. They ARE worth £50k and normally represent excellent value for money against, say, supercar opposition. So it does boil down to income and running costs in the end. Playing the waiting game on depreciation, I understand, is a skill but with market chanegs, can be a trust of luck. I'm supposing there will be many that wait until the car they were always promising themselves, gets to 4 and a half years old, still with warranty to extend, then pounce and buy then. As an example, take a 987 Boxster - known for its IMS issue. A beautiful car ruined by an engine flaw. It needs warranty.
I could never afford to walk into BMW, point at the latest M4 and say "yes please, I'll sign here". In fact, nor could I lease, it's out of my affordability range. I'd also ignore it in 10 years time when its being pitched at £10k - you could spend £5k on it in 2 years ironing out daft problems and mega consumables. So in fact, I'd still need the similar income at the beggining of the food chain when it was new.
Here's another one though - WHY do we have to buy fast cars, when for 99% of the time, on our roads, we alledge to obey speed limits? So why put your income through hell and earth, just to make you feel better that you have 3,4 or 500bhp rather than utilise a nippy, easier to live with 200bhp car?
Answer : testosterone
Tieing in for 2 years is nothing, it's affordable and the end result is you've had a new car you could never afford to buy outright. Saying £50k cars aren't worth £50k is rather silly. They ARE worth £50k and normally represent excellent value for money against, say, supercar opposition. So it does boil down to income and running costs in the end. Playing the waiting game on depreciation, I understand, is a skill but with market chanegs, can be a trust of luck. I'm supposing there will be many that wait until the car they were always promising themselves, gets to 4 and a half years old, still with warranty to extend, then pounce and buy then. As an example, take a 987 Boxster - known for its IMS issue. A beautiful car ruined by an engine flaw. It needs warranty.
I could never afford to walk into BMW, point at the latest M4 and say "yes please, I'll sign here". In fact, nor could I lease, it's out of my affordability range. I'd also ignore it in 10 years time when its being pitched at £10k - you could spend £5k on it in 2 years ironing out daft problems and mega consumables. So in fact, I'd still need the similar income at the beggining of the food chain when it was new.
Here's another one though - WHY do we have to buy fast cars, when for 99% of the time, on our roads, we alledge to obey speed limits? So why put your income through hell and earth, just to make you feel better that you have 3,4 or 500bhp rather than utilise a nippy, easier to live with 200bhp car?
Answer : testosterone
Renting the top of the range Golf is living a little?
That's one of the funniest things I've read on a forum.
How does the 4yo Maser stack up against that epitome of desirability, the Golf R?
As for the 987 being ruined by an engine flaw - hogwash.
03-24-2015 | 02:02 AM
#14
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,653
Likes: 134
From: In the land of pies and pasties
Originally Posted by s2k4tony' timestamp='1427183194' post='23552236
I think many of us have been there though, buying used that were £35k-£50k. They get issues that warranties sort out, buying an old "M" can become a wallet busting nightmare. As for 10yr old Jags versus a new R, live a litte?
Tieing in for 2 years is nothing, it's affordable and the end result is you've had a new car you could never afford to buy outright. Saying £50k cars aren't worth £50k is rather silly. They ARE worth £50k and normally represent excellent value for money against, say, supercar opposition. So it does boil down to income and running costs in the end. Playing the waiting game on depreciation, I understand, is a skill but with market chanegs, can be a trust of luck. I'm supposing there will be many that wait until the car they were always promising themselves, gets to 4 and a half years old, still with warranty to extend, then pounce and buy then. As an example, take a 987 Boxster - known for its IMS issue. A beautiful car ruined by an engine flaw. It needs warranty.
I could never afford to walk into BMW, point at the latest M4 and say "yes please, I'll sign here". In fact, nor could I lease, it's out of my affordability range. I'd also ignore it in 10 years time when its being pitched at £10k - you could spend £5k on it in 2 years ironing out daft problems and mega consumables. So in fact, I'd still need the similar income at the beggining of the food chain when it was new.
Here's another one though - WHY do we have to buy fast cars, when for 99% of the time, on our roads, we alledge to obey speed limits? So why put your income through hell and earth, just to make you feel better that you have 3,4 or 500bhp rather than utilise a nippy, easier to live with 200bhp car?
Answer : testosterone
Tieing in for 2 years is nothing, it's affordable and the end result is you've had a new car you could never afford to buy outright. Saying £50k cars aren't worth £50k is rather silly. They ARE worth £50k and normally represent excellent value for money against, say, supercar opposition. So it does boil down to income and running costs in the end. Playing the waiting game on depreciation, I understand, is a skill but with market chanegs, can be a trust of luck. I'm supposing there will be many that wait until the car they were always promising themselves, gets to 4 and a half years old, still with warranty to extend, then pounce and buy then. As an example, take a 987 Boxster - known for its IMS issue. A beautiful car ruined by an engine flaw. It needs warranty.
I could never afford to walk into BMW, point at the latest M4 and say "yes please, I'll sign here". In fact, nor could I lease, it's out of my affordability range. I'd also ignore it in 10 years time when its being pitched at £10k - you could spend £5k on it in 2 years ironing out daft problems and mega consumables. So in fact, I'd still need the similar income at the beggining of the food chain when it was new.
Here's another one though - WHY do we have to buy fast cars, when for 99% of the time, on our roads, we alledge to obey speed limits? So why put your income through hell and earth, just to make you feel better that you have 3,4 or 500bhp rather than utilise a nippy, easier to live with 200bhp car?
Answer : testosterone
Renting the top of the range Golf is living a little?
That's one of the funniest things I've read on a forum.
How does the 4yo Maser stack up against that epitome of desirability, the Golf R?
As for the 987 being ruined by an engine flaw - hogwash.
It could be anything else (Golf was an example of something that's decent), whatever sets your pants on fire."how does a 4yo Maser stack up...?" - erm - unreliable, wallet busting. Leftfield (yawn, who actually cares, some of them are dog ugly), they sound beautiful. Tch, Maserati
.. poor mans Ferrari. You've answered you own question Gad, you are a tightwad, end of. You have a different taste 
Hogwash or not - 'tis true. And with small numbers and enough on the 987 forum bleating about it, it can be a tricky decision to go private without protection. So i'm sure one of the many, creative engineers on here will be along to fill in the details. It needs Warranty, end of.
03-24-2015 | 06:50 AM
#15
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,953
Likes: 1
I still like the saying...
If it depreciates, rent it, if it appreciates, buy it.
Hence leasing my cars at the moment.
I used to buy as didn't want the tie in, but now I am happier with my (albeit modest) £££ in savings / bonds / shares rather than in a depreciating asset on my driveway.
easy on the Golf too... mine is nearly built
As for the 'bargain' 50k cars, I've first hand experience of that too and wouldn't go back. a £100k car comes with 100k car bills and running costs whether you pay £100k or £20k for it. Keep them in warranty, or have a 'fund' set aside for any repair bills as if they come, they are often big, M car, Porsche, Maser, take your pick, all seemingly great value for money on the face of it, but tread carefully.
As for PCP, as an example, sister in law put down £3k on an A3 (1.4 tdi sportback S line) and pays £299 for 3 years. I put down £800 on a Golf R and will pay <£250 for 2 years. In both cases, at the end of both, the finance has written down the depreciation, so I give the car back, if she wants to keep it, she has to stump up another 12k or so.
I know what I would rather have.
With the rise of personal lease deals out there, I don't see how the PCP makes much sense as more of your money is in the car, I have little to no risk as the asset (a depreciating one) isn't mine and I have no cash tied up in it.
that's how I see it anyway, but if you are specific about exactly what you want, then a PCP is probably better, if happy to see what lease offers come up (M135i and Golf R are the interesting ones of late) then you can get excellent value for money.
C63 from around £500pcm I believe. nice.
If you close your eyes, the Civic tourer is about £180 on a 3+35 from lings at the moment. silly value. if you can bare to look at it.
If it depreciates, rent it, if it appreciates, buy it.
Hence leasing my cars at the moment.
I used to buy as didn't want the tie in, but now I am happier with my (albeit modest) £££ in savings / bonds / shares rather than in a depreciating asset on my driveway.
easy on the Golf too... mine is nearly built
As for the 'bargain' 50k cars, I've first hand experience of that too and wouldn't go back. a £100k car comes with 100k car bills and running costs whether you pay £100k or £20k for it. Keep them in warranty, or have a 'fund' set aside for any repair bills as if they come, they are often big, M car, Porsche, Maser, take your pick, all seemingly great value for money on the face of it, but tread carefully.
As for PCP, as an example, sister in law put down £3k on an A3 (1.4 tdi sportback S line) and pays £299 for 3 years. I put down £800 on a Golf R and will pay <£250 for 2 years. In both cases, at the end of both, the finance has written down the depreciation, so I give the car back, if she wants to keep it, she has to stump up another 12k or so.
I know what I would rather have.
With the rise of personal lease deals out there, I don't see how the PCP makes much sense as more of your money is in the car, I have little to no risk as the asset (a depreciating one) isn't mine and I have no cash tied up in it.
that's how I see it anyway, but if you are specific about exactly what you want, then a PCP is probably better, if happy to see what lease offers come up (M135i and Golf R are the interesting ones of late) then you can get excellent value for money.
C63 from around £500pcm I believe. nice.
If you close your eyes, the Civic tourer is about £180 on a 3+35 from lings at the moment. silly value. if you can bare to look at it.
03-24-2015 | 07:51 AM
#16
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 22,739
Likes: 659
From: Nottingham
I think there are both angles. A golf R is nice, and cheap its much more attractive but it wont set your pants on fire, its still a golf.
People have mixed experiences with older cars. If you get a looked after one it might not break the bank. My M is an example of that albeit heavy depreciation but i think in 2.5, nearer 3 years the depreciation has been £12k, so c£375pm. One small fix (£240) in that time.
as for cheap running the S is now depreciation free so a very cheap car to run and if the M remains this reliable that monthly cost is falling now
People have mixed experiences with older cars. If you get a looked after one it might not break the bank. My M is an example of that albeit heavy depreciation but i think in 2.5, nearer 3 years the depreciation has been £12k, so c£375pm. One small fix (£240) in that time.
as for cheap running the S is now depreciation free so a very cheap car to run and if the M remains this reliable that monthly cost is falling now
03-24-2015 | 09:26 AM
#17
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 29,526
Likes: 3
From: ...by a lake...somewhere
If you have a chunk in the bank, I much prefer to buy used and sell when bored. If you don't have the money then obviously you are stuck and need to tow another's line. If you do have the money, the shots you call are greater. Completely in your control to do what you want, when you want. You want a 40k car? You buy one. You bore after 2 months, you sell it. I cba with lockins. I'm the same with everything, phones , tech, cars.
03-24-2015 | 10:00 AM
#18
Banned
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 31,755
Likes: 69
From: Survivalist enclave
I still like the saying...
If it depreciates, rent it, if it appreciates, buy it.
Hence leasing my cars at the moment.
I used to buy as didn't want the tie in, but now I am happier with my (albeit modest) £££ in savings / bonds / shares rather than in a depreciating asset on my driveway.
easy on the Golf too... mine is nearly built
As for the 'bargain' 50k cars, I've first hand experience of that too and wouldn't go back. a £100k car comes with 100k car bills and running costs whether you pay £100k or £20k for it. Keep them in warranty, or have a 'fund' set aside for any repair bills as if they come, they are often big, M car, Porsche, Maser, take your pick, all seemingly great value for money on the face of it, but tread carefully.
As for PCP, as an example, sister in law put down £3k on an A3 (1.4 tdi sportback S line) and pays £299 for 3 years. I put down £800 on a Golf R and will pay <£250 for 2 years. In both cases, at the end of both, the finance has written down the depreciation, so I give the car back, if she wants to keep it, she has to stump up another 12k or so.
I know what I would rather have.
With the rise of personal lease deals out there, I don't see how the PCP makes much sense as more of your money is in the car, I have little to no risk as the asset (a depreciating one) isn't mine and I have no cash tied up in it.
that's how I see it anyway, but if you are specific about exactly what you want, then a PCP is probably better, if happy to see what lease offers come up (M135i and Golf R are the interesting ones of late) then you can get excellent value for money.
C63 from around £500pcm I believe. nice.
If you close your eyes, the Civic tourer is about £180 on a 3+35 from lings at the moment. silly value. if you can bare to look at it.
If it depreciates, rent it, if it appreciates, buy it.
Hence leasing my cars at the moment.
I used to buy as didn't want the tie in, but now I am happier with my (albeit modest) £££ in savings / bonds / shares rather than in a depreciating asset on my driveway.
easy on the Golf too... mine is nearly built
As for the 'bargain' 50k cars, I've first hand experience of that too and wouldn't go back. a £100k car comes with 100k car bills and running costs whether you pay £100k or £20k for it. Keep them in warranty, or have a 'fund' set aside for any repair bills as if they come, they are often big, M car, Porsche, Maser, take your pick, all seemingly great value for money on the face of it, but tread carefully.
As for PCP, as an example, sister in law put down £3k on an A3 (1.4 tdi sportback S line) and pays £299 for 3 years. I put down £800 on a Golf R and will pay <£250 for 2 years. In both cases, at the end of both, the finance has written down the depreciation, so I give the car back, if she wants to keep it, she has to stump up another 12k or so.
I know what I would rather have.
With the rise of personal lease deals out there, I don't see how the PCP makes much sense as more of your money is in the car, I have little to no risk as the asset (a depreciating one) isn't mine and I have no cash tied up in it.
that's how I see it anyway, but if you are specific about exactly what you want, then a PCP is probably better, if happy to see what lease offers come up (M135i and Golf R are the interesting ones of late) then you can get excellent value for money.
C63 from around £500pcm I believe. nice.
If you close your eyes, the Civic tourer is about £180 on a 3+35 from lings at the moment. silly value. if you can bare to look at it.
Or you could rent a Civic Tourer...in which case wtf are you doing on a car enthusiasts' forum.
03-24-2015 | 11:24 AM
#19
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,183
Likes: 58
From: Hertford
I sometimes struggle to get my head around it. I think "I should lease" and then I change my mind.
There is the psychology/culture around owning versus renting and I think I can deal with that. For example, I long harboured an ambition to buy a holiday home but I lost that ambition based on renting somewhere far better than I could own with none of the responsibilities of ownership.
But that's for two to four weeks at a time whereas a lease car is for two or three years, coupled with the fact that I don't want the kind of car that £300 per month or even £500 a month buys. I'm not trying to upset anyone but I have no desire to rent, let alone own, a tarted up hatchback or 'executive saloon'. New Golf R or 4 year old Gran Turismo - let me think. In fact, new Golf R or ten year old Jag - yep, still the Jag. I've a pretty decent net worth and I'm planning on spending most of it, so it's not about being tight or only saying that because it's all I can afford.
I like top of the range cars like the M cars or their marque equivalents. They are a lot more than £500 a month and I'd be locked in. So, in a way like carper, I'd rather buy used and buy and sell on a whim. Since owning the latest Audi diesel or 1-series is never going to mean anything to me, I'll stick to buying a £50K car when it's £5K to £10K. I can only describe buying a new £50K car as 'unnecessary'.
Even when I see something my partner might be happy with, I think we will be stuck with it for years, she doesn't want or need brand new, I don't want the hassle of watching mileage or worrying about damage, so stuff £200 a month for three years, let's just buy 2yo for £10K and have done with it.
Maybe it's a lifestage thing as well. Perhaps 20 years ago I would have been attracted by the idea of getting into a car I couldn't afford to buy outright. I think I probably would.
There is the psychology/culture around owning versus renting and I think I can deal with that. For example, I long harboured an ambition to buy a holiday home but I lost that ambition based on renting somewhere far better than I could own with none of the responsibilities of ownership.
But that's for two to four weeks at a time whereas a lease car is for two or three years, coupled with the fact that I don't want the kind of car that £300 per month or even £500 a month buys. I'm not trying to upset anyone but I have no desire to rent, let alone own, a tarted up hatchback or 'executive saloon'. New Golf R or 4 year old Gran Turismo - let me think. In fact, new Golf R or ten year old Jag - yep, still the Jag. I've a pretty decent net worth and I'm planning on spending most of it, so it's not about being tight or only saying that because it's all I can afford.
I like top of the range cars like the M cars or their marque equivalents. They are a lot more than £500 a month and I'd be locked in. So, in a way like carper, I'd rather buy used and buy and sell on a whim. Since owning the latest Audi diesel or 1-series is never going to mean anything to me, I'll stick to buying a £50K car when it's £5K to £10K. I can only describe buying a new £50K car as 'unnecessary'.
Even when I see something my partner might be happy with, I think we will be stuck with it for years, she doesn't want or need brand new, I don't want the hassle of watching mileage or worrying about damage, so stuff £200 a month for three years, let's just buy 2yo for £10K and have done with it.
Maybe it's a lifestage thing as well. Perhaps 20 years ago I would have been attracted by the idea of getting into a car I couldn't afford to buy outright. I think I probably would.
I concluded that I might change my mind in a few years' time, if cars become so unreliable that owning beaters becomes too problematical. For example, even Honda/Acura is now using the same German DCT rubbish as everyone else and are having exactly the same problems with it. The very idea of M-B and Renault sharing platforms...
But if that were to happen, together with the Ponzi schemes in car leases, many of these 'premium' manufacturers would end up bust. So it may sort itself out eventually.
I get really bored by 'repayments' after a few months, too. Unless there's an income attached to it. I guess they play on that psychology to encourage one pointlessly to buy something else new; Repayment justification replaces purchase justification...
03-24-2015 | 12:01 PM
#20
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 22,739
Likes: 659
From: Nottingham
I think people are ever more keen to use credit to fund a purchase they feel they need to make.
I remember when i bought my first house, money was too tight to mention but i will anyway.. I had a calibra and the f@#king thing broke down each month and consumed my reserve income. Alternator, immobiliser/alarm, cambelt... pita
So having taken a mortgage not 6 months before i took out a loan and bought a newer car.. A citroen. That was shit too but under warranty. It didnt break much. That was for 12 months and cost me very little but still rankled with me.
Never again
I remember when i bought my first house, money was too tight to mention but i will anyway.. I had a calibra and the f@#king thing broke down each month and consumed my reserve income. Alternator, immobiliser/alarm, cambelt... pita
So having taken a mortgage not 6 months before i took out a loan and bought a newer car.. A citroen. That was shit too but under warranty. It didnt break much. That was for 12 months and cost me very little but still rankled with me.
Never again