Car cost evaluation

strawb_shortcake

For example, did you know that I have more than the average number of legs for a human being?

Me too, that is my most favourite statistic 

Grumpy_chap

shaun_from_Africa said:

For example, did you know that I have more than the average number of legs for a human being?

Yes, I guess you must be right and so do I.  Being mean of course.  But I suspect you do have the modal average and, most likely, the median average also.  So, on average, you and I have the average of average number of legs.

Considering cars, though, it is a fair assumption that when I did my motorway commute to work before COVID-19, most of the people also doing the same commute have their earning level at £60k (£45k take-home) or less (this article supports that as top 10% over £60k https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/06/02/how-much-money-do-you-need-earn-year-be-rich).  I also observe the very high number of expensive cars is disproportionately high compared to the income distributions.  Lots of "regular" cars like the 3 Series can knock on £45k once a few options are added.  It is all bonkers and out of kilter and creates pressure on people to "conform" by buying something they simply cannot afford.

shaun_from_Africa

Grumpy_chap said:

I also observe the very high number of expensive cars is disproportionately high compared to the income distributions.  Lots of "regular" cars like the 3 Series can knock on £45k once a few options are added.  

I wonder how many of those very expensive cars have been purchased outright and how many of them are on a lease and simply get handed back at the end of the lease period.

Grumpy_chap

Purchased, leased, PCP, HP, or whatever the finance route is, these cars are disproportionately un-affordable.  

Top 10% salary £60k = £45k take home.  (<£4k/month).
From online manufacturer website this evening, BMW 3 Series M-Sport 320d automatic, no cost options, £43.5k.  Lots of variables, but that's going to work out as a deposit in the range £4k and something like £400 per month plus a balloon payment if you actually want to buy it

fred246

If you go into a car showroom it's actually quite hard to find the cost of a car. Everything is quoted as a cost per month. That way cars appear more affordable. It's when you work the total cost across a number of years that you realise how much people are paying.

Rocksolid

Grumpy_chap said:

@OP - yes, your observations are absolutely correct about people and the cars they drive.  These people are spending too much to use cars they cannot afford and then get into financial difficulty and it is everyone else's fault.
Obviously, there are some people that can afford the expensive cars, but the vast majority cannot.

The average salary is about £30k according to this link https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/average-uk-salary
The average new car purchased is about £33k according to this link https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/average-new-car-price-risen-38-per-cent-past-decade-says-cap-hpi/146938
That does not make sense at all that the average car is more than the average salary.

It is important to ignore the "keeping up with the Jones's" mentality on this but keep to the type of car you can afford.  Your strategy of buying a car cash (hopefully) and running it for 10 years is a solid one.

Nice point of view.

I honenstly was sure 99% on that, but it was worth to ask.

The funny story is that these people tend do not use the car, especially the ones under leasing, increasing the mileage to 12-15k is extremely expensive, it can easily cost more than your mortgage, really a no sense when I do this mileage and I don't worry about fuel or any other thing... I just pick up the car and go literally up down this island (fuel efficiency), I do the regular maintenance of every component and that's it.

So, the best idea it seems to buy an used certified car that you can actually effort without finance, with the highest level of inspection, you can't be wrong, accounted for the annual mileage estimated and years of life expectation, then multiply x2 the total cost in this lifetime and keep an eye on the insurance evaluation, it can be heartbreaking!

Generally a car between 55-80k miles is for this kind of usage, as mine.

Thanks all!!!

Rocksolid

fred246 said:

If you go into a car showroom it's actually quite hard to find the cost of a car. Everything is quoted as a cost per month. That way cars appear more affordable. It's when you work the total cost across a number of years that you realise how much people are paying.

They sell you the financial product nowadays, vendors don't want cash anymore, they are not selling cars anymore, that's the future rip off

Car_54

Grumpy_chap said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

For example, did you know that I have more than the average number of legs for a human being?

Yes, I guess you must be right and so do I.  Being mean of course.  But I suspect you do have the modal average and, most likely, the median average also.  So, on average, you and I have the average of average number of legs.

That is impossible. No-one has the average number of legs, which is about 1.98.

Grumpy_chap

Car_54 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

For example, did you know that I have more than the average number of legs for a human being?

Yes, I guess you must be right and so do I.  Being mean of course.  But I suspect you do have the modal average and, most likely, the median average also.  So, on average, you and I have the average of average number of legs.

That is impossible. No-one has the average number of legs, which is about 1.98.

It seems as though you did not understand my post.  I am being mean.

DrEskimo

shaun_from_Africa said:

Grumpy_chap said:

That does not make sense at all that the average car is more than the average salary.

Averages and statistics don't really mean too much as they can very easily be manipulated to make a point.

For example, did you know that I have more than the average number of legs for a human being?

That's not 'manipulation' of statistics. It's using the wrong statistic to make a nonsense statement.

Number of legs is a count outcome. It wouldn't be appropriate to use the mean. You would use the median. The problem with your statement isn't 'statistics', it's the incorrect implementation of statistical methods that doesn't suit the data. The blame lies with the person making the statement, not 'statistics'.

The idea that 'statistics' can be used to say whatever you want is no different to the way you can use 'language' to say what ever you want. The problem is people are using misleading or wrong statistics, in the same way someone can use misleading or wrong language.

Statistics aren't in themselves inherently misleading any more than language is.