📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

what to do with incredibly costly mistake

Options
2»

Comments

  • Have to take issue with this gross, incorrect, generalisation.

    Outside my house right now:

    2003 BMW (13yo) 330ci, 126K. Not rusty, have done 6K miles in it in the last five months, no expenditure beyond servicing, just passed its MOT with no advisories.

    2004 Audi (12yo) A4 cabriolet, just turned 100K. Not rusty, have done 5K miles in it in the last 10 weeks since purchase, no expenditure beyond servicing, passed its MOT when I bought it with no advisories.

    2005 (11yo) Iveco Daily based Carthago motorhome, 55K. Not rusty. Done 5K miles since February, no expenditure beyond servicing, passed its MOT last week with one advisory.

    My Dad's 22yo 1994 Peugeot Boxer based Swift motorhome, 127K. Not rusty. Done almost 100K miles in 20 years of ownership. Three breakdowns, one as a result of a broken auxiliary belt, one from a holed radiator, one from a flat battery in Glenshee, and one from a broken spring. Has failed two MOTs in its life, both on minor items quickly fixed.

    The family workhorse 2002 Jeep Grand Cherokee 2.7, 113K. Not rusty. One breakdown from a failed waster pump. Passed its MOT in February with no advisories.

    Seeing a pattern here? Newest car I've had in over a decade was 7 years old. Oldest was over 20. Highest mileage well in excess of 200K. None have been 'plagued by rust' or unreliable.

    I've bought one brand new car in my life - it first broke down three hours after purchase, and spent 214 days of my 355 days' ownership off the road before the manufacturer bought it back off me.

    It may well be but the same applies for your 'new car experience'.

    Naturally each case is different, but given the OP wish to buy the cheapest vehicle to save as much as possible I was simply alerting of possible issues that may come down the line since a maintained vehicle will be expensive and a cheap vehicle will be run to the ground, mostly without or with limited service history.

    I know for sure BMW's, Volvos and alike are very well built cars, but not cheap to run (fuel) insure or tax, as an example, all this needs to be taken into account.
  • jondav wrote: »
    I would advise against getting an older vehicle. Anything over 10 years is usually plagued with rust and other issues, plus, as a minimum, you're looking at a cambelt replacement and a full service for peace of mind. It adds up... QUOTE]


    Apologies, but this is a massive and incorrect generalisation. My current car is 17 years old with over 160k on the clock and runs like a charm, as well as just sailing through the MOT. A car just needs a bit of TLC and they will generally run well - at least the older cars do.

    Which is why you haven't sold it yet. As a buyer you need to think differently :D
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177K Life & Family
  • 257.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.