Fuel efficient car?

DevilsAdvocate1

I currently do 20,000 miles a year in a 2 year old Mazda 5. Not exactly how much this works out at, but I fill up every 6 days or so.

Most of this mileage is for work, so I'm thinking about buying a small second car. Something that is very fuel efficient, low for tax and insurance. The Mazda is a diesel and I can't help wondering if an unleaded car would be better as diesel is so much more expensive than unleaded now (it used to be the other way round).

Any thoughts / suggestions would be appreciated.

forgotmyname

I guess the insurance will cost double what you think you may save in fuel. You wont have any no claims
to put towards it your already using that on your current car.

So add the cost of buying another car and insurance, tax, servicing etc.. At least 2 years worth of fuel for you.

You should be getting 40+ mpg, Bettering that with a petrol car will be unlikely.

Drive less, Avoid rush hour & traffic jams.

Lithian

Oddly there are two versions of the Mazda 5diesel engine, 108bhp and 140bhp but luckily both have the same combined MPG figure of 46 MPG

so, 20000 miles / 46 MPG = 434.8 gallons, lets convert that to litres
434.8 * 4.546 = 1976.56 litres
Whats Diesel these days? about £1.40?
1976.56 * 1.4 = £2767.18 a year in fuel

Okay, no idea if you need something as big as a mazda5 so...

off the top of my head, Polo Bluemotion 1.2 TDI Diesel is 80MPG would work out at £1591.10/year in fuel

but asking about Petrol, I paid £1.32 today... Aha! Fiat 500 twinair, 900cc and 2 cylinders but 68MPG works out at £1764.92/year

Now, i'm never one to blindly trust anything said on Topgear but i seem to recall them saying they got pretty rubbish real world mpg in the fiat 500 twinair.


Er, just read that you were meaning to get a 2nd car, okay, so assuming a 10k a year split between the mazda and a polo you'd spend ... £2179.14 in fuel over both cars, so thats £588.04 less than just running the mazda

£588.04 per year to cover the finance/depreciation/tax/insurance/servicing/etc. on a Polo isn't going to happen. Even if diesel hit £2 per litre you'd only save around £1k in fuel which i doubt would cover the costs of a 2nd car

attila_

Altough fuel prices are like they are currently I still dont believe fuel efficiency plays a big part in the cost of car ownership.

Servicing costs, insurance and the depreciation as u clock up the miles are the killer. I replace a 1.2 clio petrol (worth £1000) with a diesel seat worth (£4000). At the end of the clios life i sold it for £500.

I have checked on ebay and when it comes to sell the ibiza at high mileage it will be worth £1500. I could have bought another 2/3 clios!

The mpg differences between the two are 15. at 20,000 miles per year this does not make it a deciding factor.

Re: insurance. Could u not share the cars with a partner etc who has ncb?

Strider590

Lithian wrote: »

Oddly there are two versions of the Mazda 5diesel engine, 108bhp and 140bhp but luckily both have the same combined MPG figure of 46 MPG

so, 20000 miles / 46 MPG = 434.8 gallons, lets convert that to litres
434.8 * 4.546 = 1976.56 litres
Whats Diesel these days? about £1.40?
1976.56 * 1.4 = £2767.18 a year in fuel

Okay, no idea if you need something as big as a mazda5 so...

off the top of my head, Polo Bluemotion 1.2 TDI Diesel is 80MPG would work out at £1591.10/year in fuel

but asking about Petrol, I paid £1.32 today... Aha! Fiat 500 twinair, 900cc and 2 cylinders but 68MPG works out at £1764.92/year

Now, i'm never one to blindly trust anything said on Topgear but i seem to recall them saying they got pretty rubbish real world mpg in the fiat 500 twinair.


Er, just read that you were meaning to get a 2nd car, okay, so assuming a 10k a year split between the mazda and a polo you'd spend ... £2179.14 in fuel over both cars, so thats £588.04 less than just running the mazda

£588.04 per year to cover the finance/depreciation/tax/insurance/servicing/etc. on a Polo isn't going to happen. Even if diesel hit £2 per litre you'd only save around £1k in fuel which i doubt would cover the costs of a 2nd car

In laymans terms....

You can't save money by buying a new(er) car :rotfl:




People make excuses for buying a car or "upgrading" as it's often called these days, the excuses hardly ever make any real world sense.... If you simply want a new car, what is the harm in saying "I want a nice new shiny car"?
If someone says that to me, I just think "fair play for being honest".

Inactive

Running 2 cars ( second car ) is going to cost more than running one.

LandyAndy

Inactive wrote: »

Running 2 cars ( second car ) is going to cost more than running one.

Well spotted that man.:D

Strider590

Inactive wrote: »

Running 2 cars ( second car ) is going to cost more than running one.

And 3 cars will cost more than 2

Inactive

Strider590 wrote: »

And 3 cars will cost more than 2

:rotfl:
:D Indeed, but the OP never mentioned a third car..

myhooose

I think there is confusion here, so in summary.

One car will cost more than no cars.
Two cars will cost more than one car.
Three cars will cost more than one car or two cars.

Inactive

myhooose wrote: »

I think there is confusion here, so in summary.

One car will cost more than no cars.
Two cars will cost more than one car.
Three cars will cost more than one car or two cars.

That just about sums things up..;)