running costs of my old car vs new car help

Joe_Horner

Cornucopia wrote: »

Miles per tank is much more of a relevant (and easy) measure.

My last few cars have been returning 500-600 miles per tank, which I'm very happy with. On long trips, they've been even better than that.

I would think twice before going back to a car with 250-350 miles per tank.

Easier, maybe, more relevant certainly not.

I've just swapped cars with someone. The car I had did about 340 mile per tank. The "new" one, I filled up just after getting it and 6still have just under 1/4 tank left 510 miles later. Does that mean the new one is cheaper to run?

The old one had a 35 litre (7,7 gallon) tank (1966 Daf 32) which means it was doing about 44 mpg on petrol. The new one has a 70 litre (15.4 gallon) tank so, very roughly, is doing 680 miles on twice the fuel, or about 44mpg on diesel.

But petrol is cheaper than diesel, so the one doing 340 miles on a tank is cheaper per mile than the one doing 680 miles on a tank. That may change when I fix 5th gear on the new one (or start filling it with veg oil), of course

mark5

I've had a 1.8 petrol focus for over 3 years now and its not the best on fuel, currently doing about 130-150 miles a week which costs about £30.
It doesn't seem to matter if I drive it hard or drive for fuel economy there is only a small saving in fuel .

maninthestreet

I've just downsized from a 1.8L car with a 12 gallon tank, to a 1.4L car with a 10 gallon tank. I'm getting about 40 miles more to each tankful in the 1.4 compared to the 1.8, despite having 2 gallons less per tankful. Go figure.

mattyprice4004

How is the size if fuel tank relevant? MPG is what you look at.

Herzlos

Ultrasonic wrote: »

It will almost certainly be because the 2 L version is less economical, meaning both fuel and road tax costs will be higher than the 1.8 L version. Or that people assume it will be.

Yup the 1.8 will be more popular because people will assume it'll be cheaper to tax, insure and run, whereas none of that may be significant.

You'll get a couple of mpg better in the 1.8L (on paper at least), but may find the 2L easier to drive. Depending on all the details insurance may be more, but it may not. It'll probably be a higher tax band but that won't make much difference.

So whilst the 2L may be more expensive to run, it's potentially offset entirely by the fact it's cheaper to buy in the first place.

If you can find a nicer example of the 2L for less than a 1.8 I'd go for that.

OddballJamie

Gotta agree, the 1.8 is the same tax bracket and looks like people get about the same mpg. I'd go either the 2.0 or the 1.6 (115bhp) to save a few quid a week.

kelevraz

whats the 1.6 115 like? ive been avoiding this because ive been told it doesnt do as well on the motorways and up hills and stuff, been told it feels abit weak compared to the 1.8 125, dunno how much different 10 hp makes, but it seems whenever i ask friends which of the two i should go for they always say the 1.8,

OddballJamie

I thought it drove nice and revved well. I've driven the mk2 1.6 100bhp, 1.6 115bhp and the 1.8 and I preferred the 115bhp engine. Although I went for an Astra 1.8vvt 140bhp in the end as I've always preferred the shape and managed to get a brand new one for the price of a used Focus Zetec.

What type of driving (city/motorway) do you do and how many miles a year?

DKLS

Just dont do what my Sil did recently, she recently paid 12k for a replacement car is it did 5 MPG better than the old one so would be cheaper! as she does about 7k a year that going to take a while to get a return.

Strider590

DKLS wrote: »

Just dont do what my Sil did recently, she recently paid 12k for a replacement car is it did 5 MPG better than the old one so would be cheaper! as she does about 7k a year that going to take a while to get a return.

Classic case of just wanting a new car, but making invalid excuses for buying one, conveniently only listening to sales hype and gossip, whilst ignoring the blatantly obvious facts.

All you can do it.....