Cheapest NEW small cars in the UK

MrsE_2

AdrianHi wrote: »

If by paying say £30 a month in interest charges allows you to save £60 a month in fuel the finance deal has helped you to save £30 a month, assuming all other costs add up to the same.

Thats the point I make about a fuel efficent cheap to run little car.

Her boyfriend has an old banger of a Fiesta, it drinks petrol.

With the running costs (theres always something wrong with it) & the petrol, he could pay for one of those 4.5k Kas.

Now her fuel consumption won't be that great, but there are still savings against running an older car. If you get a decent finance deal too, it can be worth while.

Idiophreak

AdrianHi wrote: »

You just need to train yourself to understand that it doesn't matter if you never own the car.

Not really true...As well as monthly payment costs etc for a car, you also have to think of cashflow. I've been paying 270/month to buy my car for the last 3 years (last payment tomorrow...woo!) - probably could have paid less than that to lease it. But now I get, hopefully, a good number of years of a "free" car...whether it's cheaper in the long term or not is hard to say...but not having the money going out each month for now will be most welcome.

MrsE_2

danny69 wrote: »

The point in my reply was that the Nova would be worth a lot less, been ten years old. That is why you would go for TPFT. Also, fully comp insurance is out of the reach of a lot of young people, so they would opt for TPFT and therefore a cheaper car. As I said before, the OP isnt interested in peoples views, so what is the point in this thread?[/quote]

Can you quote the bit in my opening thread (or any other post of mine) where I have asked for views on what age of car she should buy?

Its a question/help forum, people post questions & others try to answer & advise them.

I have no idea why you persist in trying to answer a question that I am not asking.
I would assume you are not even talking to me (as there is no relevance) - but you keep quoting me in your posts

danny69 wrote: »

After just 10 days of getting my first car, I ran a red light. There was a police car waiting round the corner and I ended up getting a fine and 3 points. I have learnt my lesson, but am surprised at this outcome. Well, I shouldnt be really. The system is just stupid. Its all the same with the justice system.If this idiot had hit somebody then the victim wouldnt have seen a penny for repairs or damages. I dont condone speeding, but punishment should be set out and so we all know the consequences from the outset.]

I don't think I will take motoring advice from someone who runs red lights.

MrsE_2

Idiophreak wrote: »

Not really true...As well as monthly payment costs etc for a car, you also have to think of cashflow. I've been paying 270/month to buy my car for the last 3 years (last payment tomorrow...woo!) -

:beer:

probably could have paid less than that to lease it. But now I get, hopefully, a good number of years of a "free" car...whether it's cheaper in the long term or not is hard to say...but not having the money going out each month for now will be most welcome.

[/quote]

Thats the best bit, when its paid up & you feel like its free:D

AdrianHi

Idiophreak wrote: »

Not really true...As well as monthly payment costs etc for a car, you also have to think of cashflow. I've been paying 270/month to buy my car for the last 3 years (last payment tomorrow...woo!) - probably could have paid less than that to lease it. But now I get, hopefully, a good number of years of a "free" car...whether it's cheaper in the long term or not is hard to say...but not having the money going out each month for now will be most welcome.

My point would be the cash flow is always present whether you pay for it month at a time out of your bank account in lease or loan payments or month at a time out of the cash stored in the car you now own outright as it depreciates each month.
There only difference is you have to arrange for the £270 a month to be present in your bank account each month if going the lease / loan route. If paying outright for the car or keeping a car you have paid off you still loose X amount every month in depreciation and as the car gets older mounting maintenance and servicing costs.

Leasing might even be safer as the real cost of the car is in your face every year, you know it's not bleeding you dry depreciating faster than you can earn the money to replace it.

A car is always a monthly expense, how you meet the cost is just a cash flow choice, lump sum up front at the time of changing car, or a monthly payment spread over time or in most cases a mix of the two. The total paid is not necessarily much or any different.

danny69

How come people think that older cars are unreliable? I have had my car for 2 and a half years and it has cost me hardly anything, just a few things at MOT time and servicing. You say she wants new as opposed to nearly new (6-12 months old) because it will have the latest safety in it. What happens once she has had the car for 6 months? She will be in the same position as if she bought nearly new! I still cannot see the point in this thread. Somehow you get the idea that it will be cheaper to run a new car than an older car due to all these breakdowns they have?????? Also, why is the cost of insurance relevant to the calue of the car? You said something about 66% more expensive, yet the car is woth 400% more. I dont understand what you are getting at. I mean, if you compared a £50 car to a £5000 car then obviously the insurance would be proportionately more expensive than the value of the car! I like also how you assume your daughter to be a careful driver or whatever you said, how do you know? She could be a right girl racer for all you know!

Also, your arguament about the Fiesta and the KA doesnt make sense. Im pretty sure the monthly payments on the KA would be far more than it costs to run the Fiesta. As I said in the above paragraph, a lot of people assume that older cars break down all the time and rack up huge repair bills. I would much rather have a car than has got a couple of thousand on the clock, already depreciated by a third for the first owner, and all problems when new have been sorted.

tinkerbell84

MrsE wrote: »

But the cost of the insurance & the value of the car were not in perportion were they.

The insurance for a new one would have been another 66%

The value of the car new (I'm guessing £12,500 correct me if I'm wrong) is 400% greater than the old car - £2,500 x 400% = £12,500.

So for a car worth 400% more, your insurance would only have been 66% more:D

it was over 10 years ago, so I think a basic 1 litre polo would have been closer to 8k

so would have been 5.5k more for a new one, or 220% more.

MrsE_2

tinkerbell84 wrote: »

it was over 10 years ago, so I think a basic 1 litre polo would have been closer to 8k

so would have been 5.5k more for a new one, or 220% more.

Sorry I had no idea of the cost of a Polo then.

But you see my point the insurance would have been 66% more for a car worth 220% more.

danny69

Mrs E, how about applying your day cream and going to weight watchers with your daughter, as you said you were looking at doing. end of.

Idiophreak

danny69 wrote: »

Also, why is the cost of insurance relevant to the calue of the car? You said something about 66% more expensive, yet the car is woth 400% more. I dont understand what you are getting at.

The point we're getting at is that it (comparitively) doesn't matter what car a young driver gets, really - the bulk of the insurance cost is accounted for in them being an inexperienced driver, not the car they're driving. Hence you can increase the value of the car substantially and only see moderate gains in the premium.