Are rising fuel costs really putting people off driving uneconomical cars?

missile

I would suggest it is a function of how many miles you do and how much you value your comfort. Have you worked out how much money you actually will save per year?

If I were desperate, I would get rid of the car. I am sure I could save lots if I walk, cycle, use public transport and hire when necessary.

Strider590

Kilty wrote: »

As the title, really. The garage I traded my 2.0 16V Laguna into has sold it within 2 weeks - so not as difficult to shift as some dealers made out, then............

Depends on whether your buying or selling.....
If your buying then they sell like hotcakes and you should never try to haggle on price because "they sell all day long at that price", if your selling then they're really hard to shift and you'll be lucky if they take it off your hands

What's the reall truth? who knows?

I know this though, the sensible buyer goes for the newer/bigger car and saves on initial cost rather than a pitiful 10% fuel saving.

jase1

flyingscotno1 wrote: »

You can sell any car if the price is right. I certainly would not buy and uneconomical car at all unless my commute changed massively.

Also if I was going to buy an uneconomic car a 2.0l Laguna wouldn't be my choice!

As you say though the price is everything......

If that 2l Laguna was £100, it'd all of a sudden become my first choice!

Coveredinbees!!!!

My car may not be the most economical but it's paid for so relatively cheap.

gonzo127

i am still looking for a more econimcal because of fuel costs, but then again with my mileage and some rough calculations getting something which does over 60 mpg will save me ~£1000 a year of fuel costs at current price, ok with tax, mot, service and insurance i would only be ~£600 a year 'better' off but it is still a lot of money

NeverAgain_2

I think rising fuel costs are putting people off uneconomical cars, but often for no good reason.

On 12,000m a year, changing a 40mpg car to a 50mpg car will save about £375 in fuel costs - nothing compared to the general cost of motoring.

Spending thousands on a new car just because it uses less petrol is clearly economic madness.

And achieving a 10mpg saving is not simple, my diesel Focus does mid-40s mpg and most other cars which suit my needs do about the same.

jase1

Absolutely right.

If you are truly concerned about the cost of motoring, buying a worthless 35mpg car is the way to go. Provided you get a half-decent one it'll be so much cheaper than a £7000 box over three years, everything taken into consideration.

Hammyman

missile wrote: »

I would suggest it is a function of how many miles you do and how much you value your comfort.

Indeed. On our summer trip to France, some friends came with us. We were in a MK3 Mondeo TDCi130 and they were in a Renault Clio 1.5TD. Did just short of 2000 miles that week and even though the Clio did just short of 15MPG more, I know which I'd rather have been driving.

Kilty_2

jase1 wrote: »

Absolutely right.

If you are truly concerned about the cost of motoring, buying a worthless 35mpg car is the way to go. Provided you get a half-decent one it'll be so much cheaper than a £7000 box over three years, everything taken into consideration.

The difference in tax and insurance is paying for my £5500 box, never mind the fuel saving

jase1

Interesting

I can't say I've ever noticed any massive difference in insurance between a larger car and a smaller one -- maybe £100 a year (currently paying around £270). That's 300 quid saved only for me, and the tax is only perhaps £150 more expensive. So £750 perhaps over three years -- not vicious. Add on the £375/year mentioned by NeverAgain and you're talking about an £1800 saving -- but a new car will lose much more than that over three years.

Of course if your insurance is expensive (and you buy a really cheap little box like the Picanto) I can see the logic