New car to save money???

Strider590

Lum wrote: »

To be honest I'd be looking at a late 90s diesel for this sort of use, something like a VW Passat with the umwelt engine. I still regret scrapping mine after someone smashed every window on it.

I agree that replacing your current car sounds like a good idea but a new car will never save you money, especially now that all the emissions and efficiency gubbins on them makes them so fragile and expensive to maintain.

Whenever I mention new diesels being unreliable, there's always one plonker that starts banging on about their 15 year old diesel being great. But this ^^ is bang on.

Modern diesels cost more in repairs than they save on fuel and its all down to EU regulations making manufacturers fit nonsense stuff like DMFs, DPFs and EGRs.
They're great on a brand new car, but better get shot of it before its 3rd birthday.

Lum

15 year old diesels are great

I bought that Passat with 250,000 miles on the clock and the only engine-related repair I ever did was replace a single bit hose that had a tiny hole in it and caused the car to be difficult to start if parked facing uphill.

Meanwhile my 2010 diesel Mondeo (thankfully a company car) has already been back to the garage, the onboard computer said it was a turbo failure, but according to the fitter was actually caused by a stuck throttle body. I asked him !!!!!!? why does a diesel even have a throttle body? Apparently it's to do with emissions.

Trebor16

forgotmyname wrote: »

Buy a 3 - 5 year old car for much less money?

I have a 2L diesel Mondeo and it can do 60+ MPG on a run.

New cars wtill have parts that wear out, Tyres, Brakes, Clutches etc..

You obviously don't go above 50 mph if your 2 litre Mondeo is doing over 60mpg on a run.

Trebor16

Strider590 wrote: »

Whenever I mention new diesels being unreliable, there's always one plonker that starts banging on about their 15 year old diesel being great. But this ^^ is bang on.

Modern diesels cost more in repairs than they save on fuel and its all down to EU regulations making manufacturers fit nonsense stuff like DMFs, DPFs and EGRs.
They're great on a brand new car, but better get shot of it before its 3rd birthday.

What experience do you have with modern diesels? Have you ever owned one? And what EU regulation made car manufacturers fit dual mass flywheels?

steve-L

Trebor16 wrote: »

What experience do you have with modern diesels? Have you ever owned one? And what EU regulation made car manufacturers fit dual mass flywheels?

People who have decided they don't like diesels will keep quoting this. Most of this is just down to people who refuse to learn anything about cars buying cars. Typically, people who bought a new diesel for their 2 mile school run then shockingly don't READ THE MANUAL and shockingly find the DPF needs forced regen.

I don't understand why (with the exception of a few models) why the DMF is even thought to be an issue?

I bought a car and it needed a new DMF at 180,000 miles... shock horror!!!
Again this seems down to ignorance.
Probably this is also some well meaning garages that tell the person with a failed clutch "you should replace the DMF as well".
They then explain it will be expensive to repair later (labour) and likely to fail. A good garage is making no extra profit on the DMF and if you were going to have to return actually losing out.

Why people view the DMF with such horror is beyond me.... my LUK made Honda one did 180,000 miles and the LUK made BMW one has currently got 125,000 .... if it lasts as long as a clutch then I can't see the issue?

Trebor16

steve-L wrote: »

People who have decided they don't like diesels will keep quoting this. Most of this is just down to people who refuse to learn anything about cars buying cars.

I wouldn't disagree with you on that Steve.

steve-L wrote:

Typically, people who bought a new diesel for their 2 mile school run then shockingly don't READ THE MANUAL and shockingly find the DPF needs forced regen.

Or did their research before buying the car to see what would suit their needs.

steve-L wrote:

I don't understand why (with the exception of a few models) why the DMF is even thought to be an issue?
I bought a car and it needed a new DMF at 180,000 miles... shock horror!!!
Again this seems down to ignorance.
Probably this is also some well meaning garages that tell the person with a failed clutch "you should replace the DMF as well".
They then explain it will be expensive to repair later (labour) and likely to fail. A good garage is making no extra profit on the DMF and if you were going to have to return actually losing out.

Why people view the DMF with such horror is beyond me.... my LUK made Honda one did 180,000 miles and the LUK made BMW one has currently got 125,000 .... if it lasts as long as a clutch then I can't see the issue?

Its the same old story a few horror stories circulate on the 'net and before you know it is touted as fact. Hearing people describe diesels as fragile or likely to need expensive repairs or to get rid of them after they are three years old shows a lack of knowledge. Any modern car is going to be complex to repair in certain areas whether they are petrol or diesel. They all have complex electronics to assist the emissions and with the EU6 standard around the corner this trend will not be reversed.

getmore4less

gilbert_and_sullivan wrote: »

Convential wisdom says you are better off with Diesel at the mileage you are covering.

Unfortunately modern Diesels have become so complicated and fragile that they are no longer the default choice for economy that they would have been even 10 years ago.
Each generation gains more emissions control equipment and more things to go wrong.
You wanting a Diesel under 5 years old means you will be well into modern.

Not saying a Diesel won't do you fine if its well chosen and a good example of its type, but there are alternatives that whilst appearing slightly more expensive to run, might well be more reliable and pay for themselves in other ways.

There thats a fat of help isn't it...:)

there are plenty that have good reliable diesels that don't have the "modern" problems.

the VAG 1.9 TDI will do 50-60+ on the longer runs in most models most are no DPF and rock solid.


OP do a 3 years costing for your current car(guessing repairs) fuel tax insurance.

against the same for a newer vehicle.

you might not save much if anything but will have a newer more comfortable and hopefull more reliable vehicle.

if moving from 30-40mpg petrol to 50-60mpg diesel will save on fuel.

swapping repairs for depreciation(money up front).

getmore4less

LindieR wrote: »

Sorry, for less money than our current car is costing, It has terrible MPG, the electrics have failed (cannot lock it anymore) Radio has broken, the fan doesn't work properly, can't have heat and see out of front window and everytime the weather drops below zero something happens with the immobilser and we have to call a man out to reset it at £50 a go. Not to mention the imminent requirement to replace nearly all the replaceable parts including 2 tyres, brakes and clutch. Also tax at £120 per 6months. So yes, something newer which will be cheaper to run, not nessecarily in initial outlay , I think I mentioned budget of upto £5000, although wouldn't mind spending less(wouldn't we all;))

You don't say what size etc you are looking for?

there will be a lot of choice around the £5k mark but watch the small hatch they can be popular so pricy, larger does not always mean more expensive to run.

forgotmyname

A lot of those issues should have been sorted at the annual services. I can only presume you run the thing into the ground?

Tyres, Brakes etc wear out. But you need to pay for these and the loan. Thats where things take a downward turn. Getting a loan for that amount wont buy you a car that wont need parts and servicing and general repairs.

anotherbaldrick

Lum wrote: »

To be honest I'd be looking at a late 90s diesel for this sort of use, something like a VW Passat with the umwelt engine. I still regret scrapping mine after someone smashed every window on it.

I agree that replacing your current car sounds like a good idea but a new car will never save you money, especially now that all the emissions and efficiency gubbins on them makes them so fragile and expensive to maintain.

This has become a serious problem with current new and nearly new cars. I think car design has passed it's zenith and is now in serious decline. On the road there are many cars from about 8-10 years ago when reliabilty was premium and body work built to resist rust. They are doing sterling service and will soldier on for many years yet.
But the current cars have been so over complicated with sophisticated and complicated systems that even main agents with all their diagnostic equipment cannot sort them out when things start to go wrong. With DMF's, DPF's, engine management systems, sensors, ABS, traction control, electronic handbrakes, auto park, TPM, auto start/stop, systems monitoring and a whole host more, when these cars are getting to beyond 3 years and out of manufacturers warranty they become a veritable money pit as dealers unable to diagnose intermittent faults resort to replacing components at vast cost to the owner without any certainty of curing the problems.
I have a BMW 3 series in this situation, a prestige vehicle just over 3 years old with a engine warning and limp mode coming up intermitently and the dealer scratching his head.
If you want reliability look for a low mileage car up to 2006 , forget the later & current ones. They may not have the extreme economy of some of the new ones but you won't be paupered trying to keep them running.