gort Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 is that not an SL? apologies, thought it was the same model Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeroy Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 i dont want any 'I told you so' comments afterwards... i've never diven a diesel before so I may be totally disappointed by it. A diesel virgin You will love the torque. Diesels do have their place, I was very fond of our old Golf MKIV GT TDi. It revved well and was surprisingly quick - so much so that I did wonder if the previous owner had remapped it. The smell from the exhaust and during the few fuel stops bothered me though. I got used to the sound and it was fun holding revs around town listening to the turbo spinning up, but I have yet to hear a diesel that sounds genuinely 'good'. I just don't think a diesel can be a proper driver's car, it's a subjective thing but all of the ingredients need to be there and the noise and smell kills it for me. I hope that the SLK tickles your pickle Marzman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 This whole business of £250 a month is a load of old bollocks though isn't it? Its £250 a month after you put down a thwacking great deposit? Or am I misunderstanding the PCP details? If there is no deposit then its an amazing deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioneabee Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 This whole business of £250 a month is a load of old bollocks though isn't it? Its £250 a month after you put down a thwacking great deposit? Or am I misunderstanding the PCP details? If there is no deposit then its an amazing deal. nope - you're quite correct - its either 3 months or 6months rental as a NON-refundable deposit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 The ones I was looking at to get a £250 deal were about 3odd grand deposit. Kind of takes the shine off the £250 when you actually work it out to be an extra £125 a month all in all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarnie Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 The ones I was looking at to get a £250 deal were about 3odd grand deposit. Kind of takes the shine off the £250 when you actually work it out to be an extra £125 a month all in all! The Guaranteed Final Value figure or balloon payment to purchase the car will make a difference too. The figures given that the SLK is half the price of the 370z, but what are the deposits, what are the starting figures, are the terms comparable and what is the final figure stated to purchase the car? It's all well and good saying that £250 a month for an SLK is better than £450 for a 370z, but what if at the end of the deal you need to find £20k to purchase it Vs £10k to purchase the 370z, as the extra money per month as been spent reducing the balloon figure? The monthly payment figure is only one variable out of many that needs to be considered....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesterfield Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Thats if you want to purchase it - if you can hand it back after the £1500 down and two years of £250 a month would mean a total spend of £7500 wouldnt seem too bad depending on how much the car would depreciate if you bought outright - the current model doesn span the last two years so its hard to guage depreciation accurately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeroy Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Thats if you want to purchase it - if you can hand it back after the £1500 down and two years of £250 a month would mean a total spend of £7500 wouldnt seem too bad depending on how much the car would depreciate if you bought outright - the current model doesn span the last two years so its hard to guage depreciation accurately. I guess that's a bit irrelevant if the 'hirer' can't afford to buy the car outright in the first place. You hear people bigging up contract hire and the like by saying that they are avoiding or minimising depreciation losses but usually the car was out of their reach in the first place so they would never have bought it outright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesterfield Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 If the lease hire over two years works out less than the cost of depreciation over the same period, then it makes sense. If the buyer could only ever afford to buy outright with a loan, then the calculation is: If the cost of the lease is less than the cost of depreciation plus the interest on a loan over the same period, then it makes sense. If the buyer would never buy outright either in cash or by way of a loan, then it just boils down to the perceived value for money of the lease and the car you get for the money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarnie Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Thats if you want to purchase it - if you can hand it back after the £1500 down and two years of £250 a month would mean a total spend of £7500 wouldnt seem too bad depending on how much the car would depreciate if you bought outright - the current model doesn span the last two years so its hard to guage depreciation accurately. I guess that's a bit irrelevant if the 'hirer' can't afford to buy the car outright in the first place. You hear people bigging up contract hire and the like by saying that they are avoiding or minimising depreciation losses but usually the car was out of their reach in the first place so they would never have bought it outright True, but people aren't 'avoiding or minimising depreciation losses' as ALL they are paying is for the depreciation of the car over the period that it is in their possession. The only way I could ever see these schemes working was if you ALWAYS wanted to be in a brand new car and always wanted to change it every two years or so. If you ever wanted to actually own the car, or to not be constantly paying £250 a month for ever (plus a deposit of £1500+ every 24 months) then you'd be better off looking at another way of purchasing a car. As i've said before, I'm certainly not anti-finance, I just can't see a benefit to any scheme that doesn't see you owning the car at the end of it...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeroy Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 If the buyer could only ever afford to buy outright with a loan, then the calculation is: If the cost of the lease is less than the cost of depreciation plus the interest on a loan over the same period, then it makes sense. Absolutely I can never get my head around why people 'rent' cars this way and I know it's been discussed on another thread so I won't go on about it. But thinking about it, the reason why we can all buy great cars that are a few years old for not a lot of money is largely thanks to them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuarty Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 BMW is doing a great PCP on there 318i (2L) m sport plus coupe's. It must be the best looking car i have ever seen. Fully loaded with bluetooth, electric seats, 19 inch wheel, black wing mirrors, sat nav, xenons, full leather etc etc. amazing in pearl white. £388 deposit, 47 x £388 and a final payment of 9K. Vardy BMW Edinburgh seems to be best Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarnie Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 It must be the best looking car i have ever seen. Really???? a 318i is the best looking car you have ever seen?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Words straight out of my mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spursmaddave Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 It must be the best looking car i have ever seen. Really???? a 318i is the best looking car you have ever seen?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuarty Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 It must be the best looking car i have ever seen. Really???? a 318i is the best looking car you have ever seen?? Lol, honestly all the new BMW look exactly the same, the 318i is exactly the same as the 335i apart from twin exhaust. In m sport plus it looks ( ok maybee got a bit carried away, but it is the best looking run of the mill coupe then ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyBoy Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 It must be the best looking car i have ever seen. Really???? a 318i is the best looking car you have ever seen?? Lol, honestly all the new BMW look exactly the same, the 318i is exactly the same as the 335i apart from twin exhaust. In m sport plus it looks ( ok maybee got a bit carried away, but it is the best looking run of the mill coupe then ). I think you got very carried away mate, lol. The problem with mainstream cars is that the more you see them the less good-looking they become. Take the Insignia as an example; it's actually a pretty handsome car, but that wore off after I saw the 3,647,982nd one. Even the XF is starting to suffer the same fate. The beemer could look as spectacular as you like, but pretty soon it'll become 'just another 3-series' because there will be sooooo many of them around. DB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuarty Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 It must be the best looking car i have ever seen. Really???? a 318i is the best looking car you have ever seen?? Lol, honestly all the new BMW look exactly the same, the 318i is exactly the same as the 335i apart from twin exhaust. In m sport plus it looks ( ok maybee got a bit carried away, but it is the best looking run of the mill coupe then ). I think you got very carried away mate, lol. The problem with mainstream cars is that the more you see them the less good-looking they become. Take the Insignia as an example; it's actually a pretty handsome car, but that wore off after I saw the 3,647,982nd one. Even the XF is starting to suffer the same fate. The beemer could look as spectacular as you like, but pretty soon it'll become 'just another 3-series' because there will be sooooo many of them around. DB Good point, i know what you mean Danny, thats why the 350Z will always look good, especially now there finished producing them. There only going to get rarer by the day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sasha@lazytrips Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 True to a degree. The iPhone still visually looks like a pretty snazzy gadget despite the crazy popularity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marzman Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 If the lease hire over two years works out less than the cost of depreciation over the same period, then it makes sense. If the buyer could only ever afford to buy outright with a loan, then the calculation is: If the cost of the lease is less than the cost of depreciation plus the interest on a loan over the same period, then it makes sense. If the buyer would never buy outright either in cash or by way of a loan, then it just boils down to the perceived value for money of the lease and the car you get for the money Good post. So i've just worked out two values... The first - i've worked out how much i've lost in depreciation on cars over the last 7 years. I've only ever had non-new cars (newest was 4 years old, but the average age of my cars is about 7 years old). During this time, i've lost a totoal of £14000 in depreciation, or £2k per year. Comparing the price of the SLK on PCP, a £1500 deposit + 23x £250 = £7250, or £3625 a year - so i'd be losing 80% more than i have done in the past on depreciation. Not good - although i would be driving a brand spanking new car for the first time ever. However - looking on parkers at the previous gen SLK, price new vs 2yrs old for the cheapest model in the range (and therefore lowest depreciation) - they lose £11k over 2 years (not including any interest on finance i'd have to pay!) - which is a damn site more than the £7250 it would cost me to own via PCP. Okay this isnt a totally fair test seeing as the 2011 SLK is at the end of the model iteration, but it's as good a comparison as i've got. (source = http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/prices/us ... arplate=94) So based on the above... financially i'd be better off sticking with old cars as i've always done - obviously. However over a 2 year period, PCP works out cheaper than ownership, as far as i can see, and doesnt leave me with the overhead of trying to to pay a £35k loan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesterfield Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 As you have identified, comparing a brand new car with one a few years old is not really a comparison. However, does the "extra" 80% seem worth it to be in a brand new car? For me, probably not. For others then it would mean a lot. Some people have never owned a car from brand spanking new, and to do so would be special. Others are happy to buy a few years old and just get a well looked after example and save the money. For me, I seem to have recently taken to getting ex demo cars. The dealers often make next to no margin on an ex demo car and often its just a case of shifting it quickly to make room for the next demo car they have already ordered. With the money saved over list price, get it booked in for a full valet, even of the dealership has already cleaned it - and it feels like a brand new car - as you are the second owner after the dealership, for me its as close as you can get to brand new, without actually buying brand new. Financially we would all be better off riding scooters or having an old fiat tipo to drive round in, but wheres the fun in that. As long as you dont do something really daft like remortgage your home to buy a set of wheels, then as long as you are happy with what you drive and what it costs you, then you cant say fairer than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
as2bsc Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 If the lease hire over two years works out less than the cost of depreciation over the same period, then it makes sense. If the buyer could only ever afford to buy outright with a loan, then the calculation is: If the cost of the lease is less than the cost of depreciation plus the interest on a loan over the same period, then it makes sense. If the buyer would never buy outright either in cash or by way of a loan, then it just boils down to the perceived value for money of the lease and the car you get for the money Good post. So i've just worked out two values... The first - i've worked out how much i've lost in depreciation on cars over the last 7 years. I've only ever had non-new cars (newest was 4 years old, but the average age of my cars is about 7 years old). During this time, i've lost a totoal of £14000 in depreciation, or £2k per year. Comparing the price of the SLK on PCP, a £1500 deposit + 23x £250 = £7250, or £3625 a year - so i'd be losing 80% more than i have done in the past on depreciation. Not good - although i would be driving a brand spanking new car for the first time ever. However - looking on parkers at the previous gen SLK, price new vs 2yrs old for the cheapest model in the range (and therefore lowest depreciation) - they lose £11k over 2 years (not including any interest on finance i'd have to pay!) - which is a damn site more than the £7250 it would cost me to own via PCP. Okay this isnt a totally fair test seeing as the 2011 SLK is at the end of the model iteration, but it's as good a comparison as i've got. (source = http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/prices/us ... arplate=94) So based on the above... financially i'd be better off sticking with old cars as i've always done - obviously. However over a 2 year period, PCP works out cheaper than ownership, as far as i can see, and doesnt leave me with the overhead of trying to to pay a £35k loan. Don't forget to add any loan repayments on your old car figures and maintenance costs. If you included these e.g the £180 per month I pay off my loan plus the usual expense that comes with buying a used car i.e they're never perfect examples. Sent from my crappy iPhone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarnie Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 If the lease hire over two years works out less than the cost of depreciation over the same period, then it makes sense. If the buyer could only ever afford to buy outright with a loan, then the calculation is: If the cost of the lease is less than the cost of depreciation plus the interest on a loan over the same period, then it makes sense. If the buyer would never buy outright either in cash or by way of a loan, then it just boils down to the perceived value for money of the lease and the car you get for the money Good post. So i've just worked out two values... The first - i've worked out how much i've lost in depreciation on cars over the last 7 years. I've only ever had non-new cars (newest was 4 years old, but the average age of my cars is about 7 years old). During this time, i've lost a totoal of £14000 in depreciation, or £2k per year. Comparing the price of the SLK on PCP, a £1500 deposit + 23x £250 = £7250, or £3625 a year - so i'd be losing 80% more than i have done in the past on depreciation. Not good - although i would be driving a brand spanking new car for the first time ever. However - looking on parkers at the previous gen SLK, price new vs 2yrs old for the cheapest model in the range (and therefore lowest depreciation) - they lose £11k over 2 years (not including any interest on finance i'd have to pay!) - which is a damn site more than the £7250 it would cost me to own via PCP. Okay this isnt a totally fair test seeing as the 2011 SLK is at the end of the model iteration, but it's as good a comparison as i've got. (source = http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/prices/us ... arplate=94) So based on the above... financially i'd be better off sticking with old cars as i've always done - obviously. However over a 2 year period, PCP works out cheaper than ownership, as far as i can see, and doesnt leave me with the overhead of trying to to pay a £35k loan. As with most things, it all really comes down to what you want for your money. I'm not directing this at you personally Chris, but I see this type of PCP deal as exploiting people who desperately want to be seen in the latest and greatest thing but can't actually afford to be doing so. If you had £35k-£40k cash sitting in the bank, would you drop it all on a diesel SLK? Probably not I'd say. But at £250 a month it seems reasonable, as long as your happy that it's completely dead money like renting a house. The actual depreciation may be the same or more than what you would pay by buying the car but the car would actually be an asset, in the same way that buying a house does. £7,500 over two years seems attractive but I couldn't stomache in two years time driving it to the dealership, handing the keys back and walking out thinking "what have I got to show for that money now?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 As long as you dont do something really daft like remortgage your home to buy a set of wheels, then as long as you are happy with what you drive and what it costs you, then you cant say fairer than that. Surely no one would be stupid enough to remortgage to buy a set of wheels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarnie Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Boom! Probably about 18 years left to pay on those Work wheels that have probably now corroded into a pile of ash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.