Opportunity cost of newer cars

atush

Ray_Singh-Blue wrote: »

I'm with MrMoneyMustache. Cars are to be avoided where possible. How inefficient to use 1000kg of metal to transport 70kg of person. And every minute stuck in traffic, that person is sedentary and getting a little bit fatter, a little higher blood pressure, a little bit more out of shape.

Much better to organise your life so that you don't need to use a car. Live near your work, your friends, your kids school. Walk or use a bike, if you can. Use public transport when possible.

However - even having done that, I find I need to drive about 3000 miles per year for work and choose to drive about 1000 miles per year in my free time. So I have a car. But it's a total beater, 15 years old, cheap brand, 1 litre engine, entry level model, no frills - deliberately chosen to remind me that driving is not my preferred mode of travel.

I have some great bikes though & am working on an electric bike project. Because we live very near a station I sub unlimited train travel for my family, with the money which would otherwise have been spent on cars

You do that. But dont lecture to those of us who live no where near any 'station' of any kind. I get a ittle tired of those who live in cities lecturing those of us who live in the sticks.

I'll keep my new car( 2 years old used).

darkidoe

atush wrote: »

You do that. But dont lecture to those of us who live no where near any 'station' of any kind. I get a ittle tired of those who live in cities lecturing those of us who live in the sticks.

I'll keep my new car( 2 years old used).

Yep everyone has different circumstances isn't it. Not always possible in reality but we all can try in small ways to work towards it and probably fail along the way.

bowlhead99

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

I heard once in America someone with a campervan put it into cruise control on the motorway and went out the back of it to make himself a cup of tea. He crashed unfortunately, but successfully sued the caravan maker for not providing a warning that you can't leave the drivers seat while driving

A blatantly over-used urban legend for which nobody can ever find a credible source. It's always "I heard that..." "I read about..." "Did you hear about that time..." etc.

If a law firm had successfully sued the vehicle manufacturer for their client's incompetence they would still be crowing about it and using it to win new business decades later, with the kind of notoriety that Robert Shapiro and Johnny Cochrane enjoyed after getting OJ Simpson acquitted.

See also http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

bigadaj

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

I heard once in America someone with a campervan put it into cruise control on the motorway and went out the back of it to make himself a cup of tea. He crashed unfortunately, but successfully sued the caravan maker for not providing a warning that you can't leave the drivers seat while driving

No, you're thinking of father ted. There was no crash, even allowing for the ferry crossing.

longleggedhair

I kept my last car for ten years. It was definitely a "banger" by the end! I kept it going spending a fair amount on repairs each year, when it finally died a death I replaced it on one of those PCP schemes.

I wasn't sure if I was doing the right thing and felt nervous about committing to the monthly payments. However I soon realised it's cheaper for me to drive around in a new car than it was to keep the old banger going!

No road tax, no repairs (as these are included), no roadside assistance, and my fuel bill reduced by 70%. My only regret has been that I foolishly kept the banger going as long as I did to "save" money.

missile

Glen_Clark wrote: »

And 'suitable services' are always available when you have spent your 'five figure sum' on a car instead?

You sound like a green eyed monster with a chip on your shoulder envying those who wear a Rolex, drive a Porsche and can afford to dine in a restaurant.

bigadaj

missile wrote: »

You sound like a green eyed monster with a chip on your shoulder envying those who wear a Rolex, drive a Porsche and can afford to dine in a restaurant.

That's a bit unfair, everyone had the right to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others.

If he wants to sleep and eat and take a !!!! in the back of his vehicle then who are we to deny him that pleasure.

bigadaj

longleggedhair wrote: »

I kept my last car for ten years. It was definitely a "banger" by the end! I kept it going spending a fair amount on repairs each year, when it finally died a death I replaced it on one of those PCP schemes.

I wasn't sure if I was doing the right thing and felt nervous about committing to the monthly payments. However I soon realised it's cheaper for me to drive around in a new car than it was to keep the old banger going!

No road tax, no repairs (as these are included), no roadside assistance, and my fuel bill reduced by 70%. My only regret has been that I foolishly kept the banger going as long as I did to "save" money.

PCP is rarely the best option, which is not to say that it can't be cheaper than running an old inefficient vehicle that costs a fortune in fuel, repairs, tax etc

It's just that in 90% of cases the shiny new car on PCP or PCH will costs far more over the cycle of teh deal.

N1AK

I struggle to see how this thread isn't based on a redundant point or dubious figures.

Even if you accept that 9% is a reasonable rate of return to use, which I don't, then running bangers would be pointless because you could make so much money from investing other savings or income that saving a couple of grand per year on car costs would be inconsequential.

If you instead use a rate of return more people would consider realistic then the opportunity cost would be considerably lower; but still not inconsequential.

bowlhead99

N1AK wrote: »

I struggle to see how this thread isn't based on a redundant point or dubious figures.

Welcome to any one of a number of threads by MatthewAinsworth