I would quite like some advice!

ncfcfan

AdrianC:

I don't know if you've read the thread but there's a lot to be said for piece of mind. It's stressful and inconvenient to have your car breakdown 3 times in one year. This is why I'm asking the question.

I beg to differ with 'there's no such thing as a cheap car' - I had a 15 year old Punto for a year which was find and a 14 year old Corsa for 3 years which was fine. They all passed their MOT's.

So I've spent 900 buying the car and 500 repairing it since November. I fear the MOT will cost 400+. It's one thing after the other with it so I feel like cutting my losses.

ncfcfan

There's no guarantee that it'l run for another year without spending money on it. Whereas PCPing a brand new car may work out better in the long run.

ontrack

Jees 32 posts and you still wont take the advice to get it MOT'd and make a decision from the results!!!
If you want to convince yourself that you NEED a new car then go for it just don't expect everyone to agree. !!!!!!

Horizon81

ncfcfan wrote: »

So I've spent 900 buying the car and 500 repairing it since November. I fear the MOT will cost 400+. It's one thing after the other with it so I feel like cutting my losses.

You're answering your own question here, which is the right thing to do as only you can decide. Keep spending money on this one? Better the devil you know? Risk it and buy another old knacker, and it may see you right for ages with no real expense, or it may be 10 times worse than the Polo. You have no way of knowing until you pull the trigger, so to speak.

AdrianC

ncfcfan wrote: »

I don't know if you've read the thread but there's a lot to be said for piece of mind. It's stressful and inconvenient to have your car breakdown 3 times in one year. This is why I'm asking the question.

There is roughly zero correlation between age of vehicle and reliability. Our everyday car is a 1990 Peugeot which we paid £100 for, five years ago.

There IS, however, a very high correlation between penny-pinching on maintenance and poor reliability. The MOT isn't annual maintenance, nor is it some magical once-a-year difficult-to-attain pinnacle of vehicle condition - it's a check that the vehicle reaches a bare minimum acceptable standard.

It's starting to seem to me that what you're after in this thread is not information or advice but reinforcement and justification for the decision you've already made. OnTrack seems to have come to the same conclusion.

Ultrasonic

If an old car is proving un-economical to keep repairing then yes, get rid of it. But there is a whole world of options in between buying another old banger and the vast expense of leasing a new car. Leasing is for people who want a brand new car and want to avoid unexpected bills. It is not an option that makes any sense if the aim is to try and save money.

As an example, my car is 8 years old. Leasing an equivalent spec. new model would cost me ~£3,200 from www.lingscars.com. Let's say my car depreciates in value by £500 over the next year (it will probably be less), in order for the lease deal to work out cheaper I'd need to spend £2,700 on faults, MOT and servicing. I'd have change from both a turbo and DMF failure for that much! Now obviously my car isn't quite as nice as the new one I could lease, but the price premium is not one that I personally view as worth it. From a purely financial point of view it's a bit of a no brainer though.

AdrianC

Ultrasonic wrote: »

As an example, my car is 8 years old. Leasing an equivalent spec. new model would cost me ~£3,200 from www.lingscars.com. Let's say my car depreciates in value by £500 over the next year (it will probably be less), in order for the lease deal to work out cheaper I'd need to spend £2,700 on faults, MOT and servicing. I'd have change from both a turbo and DMF failure for that much!

That's over one year, presumably.

Ultrasonic

AdrianC wrote: »

That's over one year, presumably.

Yes, I should have said £3,200 per year. Or actually ~£3,400 per year, I forgot the larger initial payment. I was trying to compare annual costs of the lease with ownership. I could perhaps take it one stage further and say I'd need to end up paying £2,900 per year on repairs/servicing/MOT for three consecutive years before the lease 'deal' was cheaper!

Edit: oh, and I do have to find spare cash out of my £2,900 per year budget for my £120 VED.

forgotmyname

Spend a couple of hundred £ and get a years worth of motoring or spend £1200+ to get a years worth of motoring?

If the polo needs anywhere near the cost of a lease or similar. Then you will have replaced everything and should get another 5 years worth of free motoring.

Westmead_Fan

reading this topic has made me chuckle

a polo is one of the cheapest vehicle to run & maintain, parts are reasonable to buy & you you think thew repair bill will make the car not worth to repair & keep.

go get a pre mot check & find out what it needs then work from there things like brake pads around £30 top quality ones half hours to fit prob around £70, thats cheap.

if you have had the eml light scanned and its the catalytic converter the only way it will fail the mot would be on emissions but as others have said its highly unlikely the cat its probably a bad diagnosis.

what was the advisories from last year and what repairs cost you all that money???