Would you save much money in a smaller car

[sierraman]

Is there much differential in the running costs of say a Focus 1.6 and say a 2.0 mondeo? Thoughts please?

[Brooklands]

Best piece of advice on this topic is - the cheapest car is the car you currently own. When buying a second hand car you never know what you are going to get.

[Junkman]

It all depends on how much you drive. If you do 50k miles a year, it might make a difference, but not if you do a few thou.

I could have used an 8.2 litre Cadillac for the 5k miles I drove the past six years, and it wouldn't have made me poor.

[Stroller133]

Not when you own a modernish tdci with dpf removal turbo issues, hydraulic/ ecu steering failure, worn driveshaft and short tax and MOT! Any car is probably cheaper.

[dollywobbler]

Won't be much difference between that pair. Consider that I found a 1.6-litre Golf slightly worse on fuel than a 2.3-litre Saab. Going much smaller would lead to a good fuel saving, but you might find that a small car is just frustratingly crap.

[Bren]

Smaller engines can use more fuel at motorway speeds as they turn over faster.

Also, maintainence jobs on a smaller car can be tricky due to lack of space.

[michael1703]

My wife used to do a daily commute either in a 1958 rover p4 or a 1978 mgb, both were playing up for a week so she borrowed an 02 ford ka 1300

 

The ka was slightly worse on fuel

[Junkman]

  On 28/07/2014 at 17:23, dollywobbler said:

Going much smaller would lead to a good fuel saving, but you might find that a small car is just frustratingly crap.

 

Depends on how you use it. Around town, all cars need pretty much the same amount of petrol, unless you are literally counting Pennies.

The little Mitsubishite doesn't need significantly less than the 405 did under these conditions, but instead of being just frustratingly crap by being a small car,

it is far more enjoyable to drive, than the bulky barge was. The difference in running costs is probably less than 100 quid a year, but meanwhile,

we see the wee motor as a bit of a luxury we afford ourselves in our urban* lifestyle*.

 

 

On a different note, driving the car one wants to drive, adds something to the quality of life, that can hardly be put into monetary figures.

This aspect is often not considered by those who just look at the running costs.

[Squire_Dawson]

You may find that with the amount of money spent running and repairing a small car over a period, you could have ran a larger car.

[320touring]

We have 2 small cars and 3 large ones..

 

The two smallest have the highest power/weight ration and do (or did) get driven hard by the burd. So no cost saving over a larger car driven more sedately.

 

Additionally the 2 smallest cost the most to buy in the first place.

 

The 735 I've just bought could do 14k miles on the 2900 left over vs a 3000 pound corsa etc. .

[Spiny Norman]

  On 28/07/2014 at 17:15, sierraman said:

Is there much differential in the running costs of say a Focus 1.6 and say a 2.0 mondeo? Thoughts please?

 

If you're talking about a brand spanking new one, maybe a couple of pence per mile and whatever the difference in HP/Lease prices are. Secondhand, whichever one needs a new set of tyres or a clutch in any given year will be the more expensive.

 

I thought you were going to be comparing a Fiesta to a Jag with that question......

[rml2345]

I think in cold hard figures a slightly smaller car would be a bit cheaper but if you're doing big miles then it'll drive you mental. Space is as much a luxury as air conditioned electric parking carpet trimmed in cow.

Driving something that you like is worth paying a little bit more for.

[bub2006]

We had a 1.0 corsa 3 pot and compared to the vectra 1.8 we had not long after the corsa worked out more uneconomical. Had to thrash the living bejesus out of it to get it to move. Living in Derbyshire with a lot of hills and regular runs to see family down the a38 meant the corsa was constantly flat out.

[mercrocker]

small cars bring less when you bridge 'em...

[Junkman]

There is an inherent flaw in the OP question, anyway.

One doesn't save money in a car, one spends it.

 

It might be a cultural thing, though. Here, "to save" means to buy something.

Where I'm from, "to save" means not to buy something.

[Guest Lord Sward]

Smaller cars cost more to run. PHACT!

[tooSavvy]

well.... I had a 3pot Suzuki Swift (...err, yes! ironicles). Absolutely drove it on 'carpet crush' mode 24/7.... very good on MPG.

 

It replaced a 9K 2.0LPT..... yes, I did feel the £benefit 

 

 

TS

 

* had I driven the LPT 'carpet crush' mode....hmmm.... I'd be dead!!

[Grundig]

 

...A small car to save money in 

[New POD]

I have a few examples of this.

 

1) A mate and I were working for Lucas Industries in a "corporate seagull" type job, where our bit of Lucas, body-shopped engineers to other Bits of Lucas to do "Change Projects".

 

Lucas EUI in Stonehouse, not far from the M5, were having lots of issues and 10 people were dispatched for various projects from Solihull.  I got just 8 weeks going down there, and banked £1500 in travel expences.

 

He was told he was going to be visiting everyday for a year.  He had a nice Fiat Panda (The original 80's shit box) with 4 speed box and a top speed of 80 mph.  The company paid him 18p a mile.

 

 

 

He sold it for £2k, and bought a 535i (a B reg one) for £1800, and sat on the motorway at exactly 70 mph, in 5th.  Getting 35p a mile. Now he reckoned that the panda would get 40 mpg if lucky, and the Bmw would get 35 mpg on a run. Over the year he spent £1600 on repairs and sold the BMW for £1200 after 12 months.  He reckons he made a tax free profit of £7K and had calculated that if he'd used the panda, he would have made £4K

 

2) Yours truly, bought an AX D to 'save money' selling a perfectly good 1.6 mk2 cavalier for £450, and spending £2500 on the AX.  The cav would do 30 Mpg as an average, but the AX had to be thrashed to go at a reasonable speed, and would achieve 45 mpg if that.  Given that I was convinced I would get 60 mpg, it was all a bit shit.

 

3) My sister bought a brand new 59 reg fiesta 1.25 and I told her she should look at the 1.6 as she lives in Snowdonia.   She now admits that the car is too heavy, for the engine, and she's constantly in 3rd, whereas if she drives my dad's 1.8 Focus, she'd be in 4th or 5th.  She reckons that she gets 30 mpg, because of the hills and the short journeys.  My dad, who lives nearby and drives like a 75 year old Tony Pond, achieved 35 mpg in the focus.

[ProgRocker]

Good thread.

 

  On 28/07/2014 at 17:22, Junkman said:

It all depends on how much you drive. If you do 50k miles a year, it might make a difference, but not if you do a few thou.

I could have used an 8.2 litre Cadillac for the 5k miles I drove the past six years, and it wouldn't have made me poor.

 

I've been toying with the idea of chopping in the Almera of Doom for a miserable petrol engined supermini like a Hyundai i20. I might save £35-80 a year on the VED and a fraction more on the fuel.

 

As I do around 7k miles a year it isn't worth it. Might as well run the Almera into the ground.

[New POD]

  On 28/07/2014 at 17:51, rml2345 said:

I think in cold hard figures a slightly smaller car would be a bit cheaper but if you're doing big miles then it'll drive you mental. Space is as much a luxury as air conditioned electric parking carpet trimmed in cow.

Driving something that you like is worth paying a little bit more for.

 

Wifey wanted a MINI cooper, and having driven one, I was convinced the extra cost over my suggestion of a Jazz, would be worth it, for actually being able to dive something "fun" - I know it's small, but the driving seat has amazing adjustment, and I can really comfortable (more than any car I've driven) On a long run, it's got the legs to be comfortable, but the handling is where it wins.

Downsides:  Boot is small (I can get a Spare wheel or a suitcase in it, but not both)

and with the seat how I like it (Low and far back) the rear seat can only be used by someone with no legs. - Although with my wife or daughter in driving seat, there's loads of room in the back for my legs.

[Justin Case]

Focus or Mondeo, probably not much difference, but then I would regard them both as medium-sized. I would think though that a Citroen C1 would be considerably cheaper to run than a Mercedes SL500

 

* Shite-maths may yet prove me wrong on the last statement, however.

[Pillock]

  On 28/07/2014 at 18:21, Lord Sward said:

Smaller cars cost more to run. PHACT!

Sort of. It's an "internet fact".

 

There's that little in it these days that, as others have said, whichever one needs major work will be the most expensive. One might have an extra gear, or taller gears. Diesel vs petrol. What driving do you do, motorway or around town?

 

I was running a Focus with the 1.6 PSA diesel engine and a five speed box. I was averaging 48-50mpg with 80% motorway. Mrs_P runs a 2.0 Touran - bigger, heavier, larger engine but extra gear. She averages 50 but with much, much more town work. Probably 75% minor roads. On a motorway run it nudges 55mpg.

 

I put it down to the 6th speed. Yet my Peugeot, with the exact same engine and box as the Focus, averages 58mpg with the same mix currently sat showing 70mpg average thanks to a long motorway run. Go figure.

 

I do know that when the Focus was poorly in the DPF, it lost about 8mpg.

[dollywobbler]

  On 28/07/2014 at 17:37, Junkman said:

Depends on how you use it. Around town, all cars need pretty much the same amount of petrol.

 

Well, that's not true is it? From personal experience, I know a Jag XJ6 will deliver about 20mpg around town. A 2CV will manage twice that. Sure, if you only spend a few miles in town driving, it won't count as much of a saving to take the Tin Snail, but if you spend a lot of time there, you'll be visiting fuel stations just as often, but putting twice as much fuel into the Jag.

[Split_Pin]

Any savings are in the road tax.

 

My 1l Corsa uses 10-15 quid fuel per week, 1.8 astra the exact same on the same route to te station. The former has to work harder than the latter.

 

The 1.2 Chevy is a heavy thirsty bugger, but cheapish to tax and 14 quid a month to insure.

 

As said, the cheapest car is the one you already have as there's not much to choose between regular Joe Soap motors.

[NorfolkNWeigh]

  On 28/07/2014 at 17:51, rml2345 said:

I think in cold hard figures a slightly smaller car would be a bit cheaper but if you're doing big miles then it'll drive you mental. Space is as much a luxury as air conditioned electric parking carpet trimmed in cow.

Driving something that you like is worth paying a little bit more for.

Nail meet head.

I could and probably should use something like a 2.0 tdi Audi A6 for work. I would save about £7 on every trip to Heathrow , so about £120-150 per week, just on Heathrows, which make up the bulk of my business.

But I know that I'd hate it and not do as much work as a consequence, I genuinely ( if stupidly) look forward to getting in my barge at 03.30 in the morning and quite happily spend up to 20 hours sitting( driving,sleeping,eating) in the thing.

[michael1703]

My wife does about 275-300 miles a week in a 4.0 jag sovereign, she puts about £65 in the tank every week so its not bad,it has been reliable apart from an alternator but about 3 times a year she has a grand plan of buying something more economical and then I tell her that I won't work on some modern euro box piece of shit and spout on about dpf's dmf's and she goes quiet again

[beko1987]

I downgraded to a small car as I didn't need the space anymore, felt a bit pointless paying to drive the xm around empty all the time.

 

Would never go lower than a 1.4, I need it for the hills!

[richardmorris]

On my "fleet" the road tax difference  is negligible - 2cv and x1/9 are 140 a year, the merc is 220. 2cv will do 48mpg but does 3000miles a year and the fiat about 40mpg and 2000miles. The merc, will average 30mpg and 9000miles. But, they're all paid for (well the 2CV is my sister's and the x1/9 a gift)and there's no interest payments like a new car. I can't bring myself to borrow money to buy a car - I've always saved for what I want, so budget accordingly.

 

Big cars - I've done 20,000miles in the merc now since getting it in April 2012 - it's had 2 services, 7 tyres, 1 ovp relay (not cheap), 1 fuel pump relay, new belt, four speakers, 1 battery, 1 starter motor, two shock absorbers, 1 aerial, one set of car mats, 1 headlamp and one indicator, the headgasket, front discs and pads, and the air-con is being done at the moment.

 

Little cars - the 2CV in the last two years has had two services. But in the last 20,000miles has had an engine, clutch, exhaust and five tyres.

The fiat has had its cambelt done and a full service in the last two years.

 

Cars cost money to run; the more they run, the more they cost. Yes, the oil in the merc costs more than the 2cv but it has a lot more of it. However, mile for mile there's not a lot in it. Ignoring the initial purchase cost (although little cars are often dearer than large models), day to day it's the fuel that's the differentiator.

[Squire_Dawson]

I would say that actually, the more a car is used the more the running cost goes down - if you do many miles the cost per mile works out cheaper because you divide the running costs over a larger mileage.

 

The thing with very old cars is the need for almost constant tinkering. Though this may get annoying, it is often piffling silly things, maintenance and prevention and God knows what the savings are compared to getting the local dealer or garage to do it. For instance, roughly £100 for a major service on a compact old car and for £40 you can DIY. Though for some jobs it would be daft not to pay the garage.