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

goldspanners

if a car is just a lump of metal then it doesnt matter if its an old or new lump of metal then does it?
metal is metal. so why pay you at least £200 a month when you could own your very own lump of metal for £500.

lets face it, your on here to persuade people to lease cars,in the hope that they will lease from you.
we dont expect you to openly see our point of view about owning your own car.

most cars at 3 or even 5 years old dont need much work done to them other than the routine stuff like tyres,even your lease cars will need tyres.

tomstickland

The new car is a later much better model, a more attractive car with additional safety features. May be for a loved one who they want in the safest car possible for the price. More economy, better CO2. Much further away from the MOT, more warranty. It is simply nicer to have a new car instead of a used one. They smell nicer, for a start. More reliable, new tyres, brakes everything... not worn parts. Will not need a service for ages and then it will be a very small one.

Hell of lot of advances in performance in 18 months.

Truth is, the new car is no better than the model from 5 years ago.

I run a 20 year old car and it costs !!!!!! all.

anewman

Not to try start an argument (more of a thoughtful consideration of the facts) - the Co2 point is one the car MFR's like you to think. In fact the car MFR's would like the Government to give incentives for people to buy new cars and get rid of an old one - all in the name of the environment (an I believe they have tried). But in actual fact, the process of scrapping the old car to make way for the new, and in making the new car far outweighs any difference, even after using the newer car for many years. (Okay okay I haven't gone and measured it, but this is what some experts say, and when you think about it it makes sense as there's little difference in Co2 emissions of the cars themselves, and making a new car is sure to use lots of energy and resources ).

Co2 emissions go beyond what comes out the back of the car

Ling_Valentine

tomstickland wrote: »

Hell of lot of advances in performance in 18 months.

Truth is, the new car is no better than the model from 5 years ago.

I run a 20 year old car and it costs !!!!!! all.

Yeah, well, with your 20 year old car, 20 year old fridge, 20 year old TV, 20 year old carpets...

I envy your lifestyle, I am sure you save £ zillions

Of course leasing is not for everyone, BUT, if you are thinking of buying a new car (or nearly new), it can save masses on certain models which fit the graphs.

A lot of people treat cars as a simple transport device and concentrate on using them as tools to maximise their earnings (rather than running older cars which invariably take up much more time/effort and money to maintain).

A 20 year old Fiesta would be .... just loverly, mmmmmmmmmmmm! Try crashing in one. Massive difference to a new one.

Ling_Valentine

goldspanners wrote: »

if a car is just a lump of metal then it doesnt matter if its an old or new lump of metal then does it?
metal is metal. so why pay you at least £200 a month when you could own your very own lump of metal for £500.

Of course it matters. It is opportunity cost. If your time/safety/money messing around with bangers is not that important, buy one! I am sure the cheapest car in absolute terms is a 20-year old Micra, driven carefully. As long as it doesn't break and passes the MOT.

If your time is more valuable, use a new car and maximise earnings.

The difference between the 20-year old Micra and the brand new lease TDCi Fiesta is not that great in monetary terms, if honesty is applied to costs (over 2 or 3-years). Plus you get a much nicer, safer car. And if your job depends on your transport... well, it is a no brainer.

A 20-year old car will provide good service if you choose well, but...

Whoever said it was the opportunity cost is exactly correct.

Ling_Valentine

anewman wrote: »

Not to try start an argument (more of a thoughtful consideration of the facts) - the Co2 point is one the car MFR's like you to think. In fact the car MFR's would like the Government to give incentives for people to buy new cars and get rid of an old one - all in the name of the environment (an I believe they have tried). But in actual fact, the process of scrapping the old car to make way for the new, and in making the new car far outweighs any difference, even after using the newer car for many years. (Okay okay I haven't gone and measured it, but this is what some experts say, and when you think about it it makes sense as there's little difference in Co2 emissions of the cars themselves, and making a new car is sure to use lots of energy and resources ).

Co2 emissions go beyond what comes out the back of the car

Correct. I have an MSc in Environmental Quality, and agree in a large part. It is a complex argument and extremely difficult to measure. The main way to emit less CO2/crap etc, is unpopular; just to simply drive less, make less journeys and if possible use the car more efficiently (take a friend or 3). But who wants to car-share in a 20 year old banger? Walk/cycle/bus/train more. This is why high fuel prices are a benefit, to increase efficiency and make people engage brain. Look what lower fuel prices have done in the USA, over decades. The American firms are now lagging and have suffered more than rival car-manufacturing firms. It may help to kill them off, it is so important!



However, the overall air quality has improved dramatically in the UK over the last 20 years, due mainly to the vehicle parc. (I know that is not CO2, but the associated Nox and all the rest, but CO2 measure is easiest indicator to look at). Sit behind an old car and you understand. It is the main reason for MOT failure. If current standards were applied to older cars, they would all have to be scrapped. Do you really want to pump out that errr... gas?

Car production is also massively cleaner than when your 20-year old (???) car was built. So, in overall life-cycle, the new car will be massively cleaner than the old car.

The UK manufacturing and service industries need to be considered. Look what is happening now, as people stop buying... Nissan, Honda, Bentley, Toyota, Mini, etc... stopping production and laying off 10,000's. Associated service industries are failing. That will affect everyone, wherever your earnings come from as liquid cash in the system shrinks due to lower overall earnings.

The merry-go-round must continue, unless you want to live in a subsistence community. And we all want better air quality. Try living in my city (Chengdu) in China. Yuk.

People are also not entirely stupid, they see a cost/lifestyle benefit in new cars. There is a massive safety argument which cannot be denied. And new cars are just ... nicer, have more toys, latest gadgets and are quieter etc etc. Usually.

Allow me indulgence:

Martin Callanan (Euro MP for the North East Region and member of the Euro VI vehicle standards committee and ex-engineer) said "Ling and her unique website displays environmental information in a way that leads the UK motor industry. Following my discussions with her about greening the business, Ling has grasped the environmental nettle and is giving UK car buyers comprehensive environmental data on all new cars for sale in the UK to enable them to make an informed choice. Ling gives a fantastic amount of green information on her new cars, which the rest of the UK motor industry would do well to emulate. Using the internet is already the most energy efficient way of researching and buying a new car, so well done Ling for taking the personal responsibility to push this carbon data to the top of her agenda and to push environmental awareness a big step further"

The VCA (the VCA is the Government designated UK approval authority) wrote to me, saying "I can appreciate the efforts you are making to improve environmental awareness amongst your customers and I'm sure that your approach will be of help to them when deciding on a new car. At this time there is no legal requirement for dealers to display this information on their websites." Why not? I think there should be! The VCA continued, "Your comments and in depth suggestions on how we might improve the output of the data will be considered alongside any other proposals for change."

I won the motor industry award for "Best non-franchised environmentalist 2008" - Automotive Management awards, sponsored by the RAC.

Hope you all appreciate I really am trying (within a dinosaur industry) to make this stuff better for consumers. I am not just some bloody broker trying to flog you some lease cars!

tomstickland

Ling_Valentine wrote: »

Yeah, well, with your 20 year old car, 20 year old fridge, 20 year old TV, 20 year old carpets...

I envy your lifestyle, I am sure you save £ zillions

I run a 20 year old car because I like the car and they stopped making them in 1991. I don't care what anyone else thinks, I don't envy anyone or expect them to care what I do.

Your argument was that a new car offered a host of amazing benefits. Selling new things is all about telling people that their old thing is past it and useless and trying to appeal to the emotional side of having something new and shiny. In the case of cars it costs about 30% of the forecourt price in depreciation.

(rather than running older cars which invariably take up much more time/effort and money to maintain).

A well maintained vehicle doesn't take loads of time and money to maintain. I wouldn't bother running one if it did.

Car production is also massively cleaner than when your 20-year old (???) car was built. So, in overall life-cycle, the new car will be massively cleaner than the old car.

But the old car already exists. Replacing it with a new one will still have more environmental cost than keeping the old one.

Ling_Valentine

Tom,

Try not to crash in that car. You will have at least 50% more chance of a serious injury or death in a severe crash, than in a new model. Statistically you will be far more likely to break down due to 20-year old electrics and 20-years of vibrations etc. Not to mention the emissions or aircon with CFC (or no aircon) etc. Perhaps you have no ABS? Your emergency braking distances will be at least 10% more than with the latest car. You have no ESC. Euro NCAP says: Electronic Stability Control can turn potentially serious accidents into near misses and could drastically reduce accident occurrence. So, you seem to be MORE LIKELY to have a skidding accident in an extreme circumstance, too. Hmmm.

Safety and reduction of time investment are some of the best reasons for choosing a new car. Human protection is a massive reason to change. If you hit a pedestrian in a 2-year old car, you are likely to cause far more injury than doing the same in an equivalent new-model car.

If you count the hours getting it serviced, waiting for MOTs, repairs, tyres, applying road tax etc etc, and costed your time messing around... unless you are unemployed or value your time little, you will have an overall higher cost than you imagine.

Choosing it because you want and like it is the best reason to me, I cannot fault that one.

But to ignore or downgrade the safety, emissions, cost etc benefits of a new car...

Contessa

Contessa, your car is "it" not "she" (does your fridge have a sex?), and some people like older cars. That's fine. It's a balance. Less safety and less reliability versus more of both

- Ling[/quote]

Indeed my car is a "she". One or two have been "he" (usually the Scandinavian ones I have owned). Many have also had names. I don't have a close relationship with my fridge. But my car is different-I spend many hours with her and she takes me safely about 18000 miles up and down motorways each year.

Ling_Valentine

tomstickland wrote: »

But the old car already exists. Replacing it with a new one will still have more environmental cost than keeping the old one.

Then we really should have kept all those Model A Fords, Morris Marinas and Hillman Avengers on the road. What a shame no one realised...