EST time for new car

Katykat

We have a 2011 qashqi. Hoping to trade it in for a brand new one. We’re not too bothered about it having the latest reg plate. When is the best time to get the best deals?
Title should read BEST time for new car

AdrianC

Right now, the market's still getting back to normal after the delays over WLTP certification.

The Qashqai was only facelifted in 2017, and has just been re-engined for WLTP, so it's entirely likely demand is still strong.

forgotmyname

Big flaw in their WLTP facts.

The amount of CO2 a car emits is directly related to the amount of fuel it consumes

Puzzled how a 1400cc petrol engined car doing around 40mpg gets higher emissions than a 2000cc petrol engined car doing 34mpg if thats the case?

motorguy

Also, use brokers to get prices and ask your dealer to price match. If he cant, then use the broker.

https://www.broadspeed.com
https://www.drivethedeal.com

Both good starting points.

Also worth noting that pre-reg / ex-demo cars are often quoted with a massive saving compared to list price. You need to compare the price to the discounted price (and incentives) you can get on a brand new one.

Often buying brand new works out cheaper.

Katykat

As an extra question, how long should you keep a car? Ours is 7 yrs old now. We have hung onto it because, A) it has never given us any problems and it’s only done 34000 miles. However, a friend in a similar situation, had an accident in which his car was written off. He was dismayed that the insurers valued his car at way less than he thought he would have got if he had traded it in before the accident. It has made us think that however reliable a car may be, it might not be a good idea to hang on to it for too long. But how long is too long?

AdrianC

How long is a piece of string?


The value of a car is very easy to define - there are umpteen price guides. Insurers use them. Your friend was almost certainly being optimistic about the value.


It's also very easy to inflate the value on trade-in, simply by overpaying for the car you're buying. Pay £2k more than you could, and the dealer will happily give you £1k more for your trade-in.

Jonesya

Katykat wrote: »

As an extra question, how long should you keep a car? Ours is 7 yrs old now. We have hung onto it because, A) it has never given us any problems and it’s only done 34000 miles. However, a friend in a similar situation, had an accident in which his car was written off. He was dismayed that the insurers valued his car at way less than he thought he would have got if he had traded it in before the accident. It has made us think that however reliable a car may be, it might not be a good idea to hang on to it for too long. But how long is too long?

I think you've got it the wrong way round. The insurance value will be based on its market value, so it's more likely that your friend's idea of what it was worth was wrong and that the car has actually been losing value, depreciating, quicker than expected.

Which means, having a newer car is more expensive because it loses a lot of value through depreciation, but that older, reliable cars can be bought for a lot less, so the older cars are often better value.

You've got a reliable older car, which might not be valued that much, so you're probably better keeping it and running it for a few more years. Rather than trading it in, getting little for it, and buying a new expensive car which loses value rapidly.

System

Katykat wrote: »

As an extra question, how long should you keep a car? Ours is 7 yrs old now. We have hung onto it because, A) it has never given us any problems and it’s only done 34000 miles.

My current car is a 9 year old MK4 Mondeo, I've owned it for the last 7 of them. Its now on 138,000 miles, 100,000 in my ownership, never let me down, nothing wrong with it so I'll be keeping it. The car it replaced, a MK3 Mondeo I owned for 5 years and sold it at 8 years old with 168,000 miles on the clock and it also had no issues. Do you know what I thought the first week I drove my shiny new car with 130,000 miles less on the clock than the one I'd just replaced on its 56 mile round trip commute? I've just wasted £8500 to get a newer car to drive down the road exactly the same as the old one did.

The total cost of ownership of a car is depreciation + running costs. Depreciation is usually the biggest cost you have, much more than repairs and in the first few years of a new cars life could well be more per year than what you spend in total on petrol, insurance, tax, servicing and repairs. The newer the car the bigger its annual depreciation is. At some point the older car reaches the bottom of its depreciation so the only costs of ownership are running costs, not running costs+depreciation.

So looking from a purely money saving point of view until it rusts into the ground is how long you should keep a car. It is always cheaper to repair than replace with a newer car, even if you spend a grand or two on repairs purely because of the annual depreciation costs of the newer car.

It has made us think that however reliable a car may be, it might not be a good idea to hang on to it for too long.

I don't understand this way of thinking. Sure yes as the car you own gets older its worth less but replacing a car that's depreciating say £500 a year with a new(er) one that will be depreciating £thousands a year just because you're worried the older car is worth a lot less than when you bought it makes no sense whatsoever.

There are truly only every two (well three) reasons for justification for buying a new(er) car from a money saving point of view:

1) Your car no longer fits your needs. For example you had a small hatchback like a Ka but your family has grown and it no longer is suitable.
2) You want something that is a nicer place to be in.
And mine which is 3) Its got rust in structural body components so its not as safe as it used to be, even if you get the holes welded up, and is end of life.

facade

forgotmyname wrote: »

Big flaw in their WLTP facts.

The amount of CO2 a car emits is directly related to the amount of fuel it consumes

Puzzled how a 1400cc petrol engined car doing around 40mpg gets higher emissions than a 2000cc petrol engined car doing 34mpg if thats the case?

Me too if that is the case. The CO2 comes from the carbon in the fuel. So the amount emitted has to be directly proportional to the amount of fuel consumed, unless they are absorbing it with a scrubber.


They could go for a neat fiddle and have an amine scrubber, that works for the duration of the emissions test, then they heat the scrubber and reverse the reaction when they drive home from the test

AdrianC

forgotmyname wrote: »

Big flaw in their WLTP facts.

The amount of CO2 a car emits is directly related to the amount of fuel it consumes

Puzzled how a 1400cc petrol engined car doing around 40mpg gets higher emissions than a 2000cc petrol engined car doing 34mpg if thats the case?

Got an actual example?