What o you think of this deal? New Ford Fiesta £65 per mth 4.9%

goldspanners

credit_crunch_victim wrote: »

i love the smell of a petrol car with no cat on a cold morning
the best smell in the word

ahhh, the memories of my old capri,running just a little too rich.

winanyway

Not sure if anyone saw Top Gear where a used e-type jag and an Aston Martin where tested round the track for performance against a new standard Astra diesel.

Of course the Astra won,not sure it could have beaten our TVR though.:rotfl:

winanyway

Keith wrote: »

a. Sure do, hitting these modern heavy cars is a pain.

b. Nope

c. Nope

d. The CAT which was brought into save lives now produces a gas which the government taxes people on because it is bad.

My car has no CAT, it produces lovely carbon monoxide.

Think of that whilst you kill the planet with your CO2.

You should get a CAT it has been proven that people who own CATS live longer than people who don't.

Not sure about DOGS but I suspect judging by the size of some breeds it may well shorten your life.

wisbech_lad

I live in HK, so no need for a car. My parents have had three cars since 1983

1983-2001 VW Passat Estate, bought cheap as was demo car. Lasted until 2001 when it (finally) failed MOT. Last few years of life was mostly used as removal van and fishing car, and given no proper maintenance. I loved this car - it was spacious, badly dented (a parking mistake by a sister) and a great piece of engineering. My parents drove it to Buck House to pick up my father's MBE (with dents)

1989-1997 Nissan Micra. Again a demo car. Was sold to my sister, then to my aunt, then to my cousin. Think it finally got scrapped in 2003 or so

1995 Mondeo - bought in 1997 at auction to replace the Micra. Still going strong.

But they are now looking for something easier to get in/out of. Probably a second hand CMax.

Hey, people who want to turn over cars every 36 months - well, it is your choice. But almost all cars these days are well made enough to last 15 years/ 150,000 miles plus

Ling_Valentine

goldspanners wrote: »

ive got a 5 year old focus, i bought it brand new, with ford priveledge discount,its paid and i now own the car and dont need to pay anything towards it, i maintain it myself doing more maintenance than most folk would to thier car,i dont mess with it,its entirely standard (mechanically). all i need to do is purchase the parts if anything goes wrong. and the parts are usually cheap.nothing major gone wrong with it so far.
i dont see how me paying £200 a month for a new focus from you could save me any money? i would own nothing in the end and just hand the car back.
where as if i run my car and put £200 in my pocket every month i can save this to buy anything i need,but if the car started to cost £200 a month in parts then of course i would get rid of it,who wouldnt? but the fact is it doesnt,and probably wont for the foreseeable future.

Yes, an absurd argument. I am sure a five year old Focus IS cheaper than a brand new one. A 10-year old Focus will be even cheaper. So will a 20-year old Escort. Why not go the whole hog and prove how much cheaper a Ford Anglia is?

If you want to run a 5-year old car, that Focus will be lovely, I'm sure. If we accept that the 5-year old car is much better than a 10-year old version, ...then a new one is that much better than a 5-year old one.

Ling_Valentine

Keith wrote: »

a. Sure do, hitting these modern heavy cars is a pain.

b. Nope

c. Nope

d. The CAT which was brought into save lives now produces a gas which the government taxes people on because it is bad.

My car has no CAT, it produces lovely carbon monoxide.

Think of that whilst you kill the planet with your CO2.

Hahahaha, this is just blind denial from one of the luddites.

New cars still produce CO, old cars still produce CO2. Nit. New ones simply produce less toxic substances (things that kill people). Just because CO2 has started to be measured (and taxed), doesn't mean that it has just started to be produced.

A petrol engine catalyst (basically) does this (thanks to Wikipedia to prevent me working the formulas myself):

1. Reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen: 2NOx → xO2 + N2
2. Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 → 2CO2
3. Oxidation of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) to carbon dioxide and water: CxH2x+2 + 2xO2 → xCO2 + 2xH2O
4. Use of a catalyst precludes the use of leaded gasoline fuels, which effectively means no more airborne lead distribution (especially to kids who absorb it in greater ratio). Hurray!

But, it cannot ever do it perfectly. Why would you ever be proud that you are not doing the above? Why are you proud to emit more poison?

However, all the modern computerised engine management and clever fuel injection means that there is less unburnt fuel thrown into the atmosphere and far fewer noxious gases. It is not the CO that is the problem (unless you breath too much of it), it is the other cocktail of hydrocarbon and particulate emissions. Many thousands who used to die, now live through breathing illness and lead poisoning etc. I cannot believe that people put their right to pollute above the right of others to breath fresh air. Astounding.

This is a big reason why things like a petrol lawnmower now causes massively more pollution problems than the equivalent new car.

Agree if you strip away all the safety features and comfort (like aircon), new cars would produce even less. However, there is a balance and the massive safety benefits of new cars mean that thousands of people a year who used to die and get badly injured (many through no fault of their own) will now survive better. Also, pedestrians are now much safer, if hit by a car. To put it into perspective, think of all the famous people who have died in car crashes - James Dean, that Princess Grace in Monaco, Albert Camus, Margaret Mitchell, Jackson Pollock, Jayne Mansfield, Isadora Duncan, Sam Kinison, David Halberstam, General Patton, Marc Bolan, T.E. Lawrence, and the guy who played Q in the bond movies Desmond Llewellyn, there are loads of them. The list is endless. Many of these people may still be alive if they had crashed in the latest, safer, more protected version of the car. And, of course, Princess Diana, Al Fayed and the driver (that was the day I first stepped into the UK). No matter what caused the accidents, in a more modern car, the outcome may have been different. How different if some of these people were still alive?

tomstickland

I don't think an automated single issue argument bot could produce as much output as this.

No amount of safety features are going to overcome the basic physics of a car hitting a concrete object at high speed.

Car sales is a fashion based industry, based about telling someone that a new one is much better than the old one.
Lets assume that, actually, yes, the cars produced today are indeed much, much better in every way.

What will happen in 5 years time? The sales teams will be saying "oh, cars from 5 years ago are really dangerous and inefficient, you need a new one".

Ling_Valentine

tomstickland wrote: »

I don't think an automated single issue argument bot could produce as much output as this.

No amount of safety features are going to overcome the basic physics of a car hitting a concrete object at high speed.

Car sales is a fashion based industry, based about telling someone that a new one is much better than the old one.
Lets assume that, actually, yes, the cars produced today are indeed much, much better in every way.

What will happen in 5 years time? The sales teams will be saying "oh, cars from 5 years ago are really dangerous and inefficient, you need a new one".

No, now you are being silly. If cars in 5 years make solid advances in safety, environment etc (which they will), then certainly it will be worth to swap. You cannot stop progress. It would be worth (as ever) to have a brand new car if there is not significant cost, anyway. Some cars will be cheap, I just don't know which ones. If you use a car as a tool, like a computer, especially if it's mission critical - it is always worth to change regularly to enjoy the max benefit of everything being new and up to date. Have you driven the modern equivalent of your car? Your iPod works, your phone integrates, the satnav is brilliant occasionally you need it, all the airbags surround you, the brakes have ABS, many potential skids will not happen, certainly the tyre footprint will be bigger, everything will work more nicely. There will be loads of useful gadgets like parking sensors (useful for small hidden children crouching behind your car), the aircon will cool you. The car will be significantly quieter and more comfortable. Service intervals longer (possibly intelligent by computer). It may have an extra gear. Gearboxes have improved massively. It will throw out less poisons. It will have been built with more precision, by better CAD optimising. In real terms, it will cost less than your old one when that was new.

Re your concrete block argument: I agree that a 70mph crash into a concrete block will probably kill you in any car. However, we don't often crash like that. Side impact protection bars and airbags and curtain airbags in pillars and doors are making massive safety advances. The brain is susceptible to side jarring. If that can be minimised, many more people avoid serious damage. New cars are really well designed to degrade better in crashes, with less human damage. The difference is quite astonishing. Survivability has increased massively, and you may be able to crash at 20mph faster and sustain less injury than in your current car. Nasty things like brake pedals going through your ankle are much rarer.

It's clearly obvious that in many accidents people now walk away where not so long ago they were carried away. Plus, recent improvements in pedestrian safety save a lot of innocent lives.

The anti-skid technology prevents a lot of accident situations.

I think to argue against this safety stuff is pretty stupid (no offence). Who knows when you will have a bump, it may be completely not your fault. When that happens, your wife/partner will be relieved to see you walk into your house and moan about your squashed car, rather than have to do a hospital visit, or worse... all to save a few quids.

I am human, not robot.

tomstickland

Ling_Valentine wrote: »

No, now you are being silly. If cars in 5 years make solid advances in safety, environment etc (which they will), then certainly it will be worth to swap. You cannot stop progress. It would be worth (as ever) to have a brand new car if there is not significant cost, anyway.

I'm not being silly.
I've seen exactly the same marketing bull !!!! in the world of mountain bikes.
A 3 year old frame design is described as "elderly".

It's all about telling uninformed consumers that the new thing offers some amazing advantages over the old thing.
I've got the 1966 AA book of the car, and you know what, everything is pretty much the same.

Have you driven the modern equivalent of your car? Your iPod works, your phone integrates, the satnav is brilliant occasionally you need it, all the airbags surround you,

I really don't have any interest in the unecessary tat inside a car. Really, in order to keep a sales pitch the manufacturers have added more and more electrical junk that does nothing for the driving experience.

the brakes have ABS, many potential skids will not happen, certainly the tyre footprint will be bigger, everything will work more nicely. There will be loads of useful gadgets like parking sensors (useful for small hidden children crouching behind your car), the aircon will cool you.

Tyre footprint size is simply the car mass divided by the tyre pressure. Available grip is totally unrelated to contact patch size. There are books that cover all of this. Large wheels are a fashion, the handling experts think it's a joke.
I've never owned a car with ABS and I've not had any large skids. It's all about adjusting the driving to the conditions and reacting properly.

Service intervals longer (possibly intelligent by computer). It may have an extra gear. Gearboxes have improved massively. It will throw out less poisons. It will have been built with more precision, by better CAD optimising. In real terms, it will cost less than your old one when that was new.

Long service intervals are bad. They are designed to help sell a new car, not maintain it properly.

I think to argue against this safety stuff is pretty stupid (no offence). Who knows when you will have a bump, it may be completely not your fault. When that happens, your wife/partner will be relieved to see you walk into your house and moan about your squashed car, rather than have to do a hospital visit, or worse... all to save a few quids.

I am human, not robot.

Yes, but I think the safety aspect has been misrepresented because manufacturers always need ways of telling people that the new model is better.

Ling_Valentine

You are unbelieveably anti-progress.

It is patently obvious that safety aspect has not been misrepresented, as all the EuroNCAP tests show.

The Chinese are building some older designs that fare very badly in cNCAP tests. The last 5 years have been massive progress on human damage in crash tests.

Your confidence in your driving skills is mis-placed. Everyone thinks they are a good driver. But everyone makes errors on a daily basis. You only need one...

Long service intervals are efficient. They do not detract from the safety of the car. Cars' parts and stuff lasts longer. Parts standards are higher. Who hears of new clutch and new shocks these days? If the computer says your oil is still in spec, then why change it? The computer can monitor the condition of your car and parts and tell you when things need changing (depending on driving style). It has been proven to save money and waste (not changing stuff that doesn't need to be) and not compromise safety. Why change spark plugs for no reason? You are applying 1966 standards to 2009. That is like applying 1923 standards to 1966.

Your 1966 book of the car will contain pictures of front drum brakes, leaf springs, toughened glass, solid axles, carburrettors, wind up windows, new fangled servo brakes on some cars, no heated rear screens, no seat belts (maybe Volvo only), crossply tyres, sealed beam headlamps, valve radios, quarterlights, no power steering for normal cars, many 6volt cars, some 2-stroke cars, some bubble cars hahaha, no aircon, 3 and 4 speed gearboxes and 3 speed autos, no alarms or security, batteries you have to maintain, things to grease and plastic seats, and cars that were dangerous at 70mph (if they could reach it). Cars were built with people banging them with hammers. Overall quality was poor. Cars rusted to hell. And yet, cars were much more expensive in real terms, back then. They were massively worse value. They were very high maintenance. That you still have this book says a lot about you. I believe in the 1960s in the UK a woman could not buy anything on HP without a man signing the papers! That's how long ago it was. It is like someone in 1966 having a 1923 AA Book of the Car and swearing by it.

I do have a 1966 Routemaster bus, though. I swear by it That is the last time England won anything worthwhile at football! And Mr Mao was only half way through his killing spree. That's how long ago it was!



And you think things have hardly changed?

Life on a Mars Bar.

Sheesh. Luddite.