Would you save much money in a smaller car

[beko1987]

People annoy me when they moan about tax. Girl next to me at work thought I was stupid for buying a car with no tax, but the way I see it I need it anyway, it's just a fixed cost. No matter if its £50 or £500, it has to be paid.

 

Heard an amusing conversation over the cheaper taxation of a 1.4 disastra coupe over a 1.9 disastra coupe, took much arguing to tell her to choose the 1,9 as it would be quicker, as economical for her driving and only costs £30 more a fucking year, enjoy the bloody thing.

 

Amy still cant get over why the ZX is the same to tax as hers "But it's a smaller car" etc

 

The old girl opposite me had the right idea, she got a merc slk for her 60th, one last hurrah she said. She uumed and aahed over a (I think) 2002 on the old tax band with a higher engine, or a 2006 on the new upper band with a lower engine.

 

She did the maths and bought the older car, and offset the increased cost of fuel with the cheaper tax, says she had 5 years of breaking even on her mileage, then anouther year or 2 not breaking even then sell it and buy a boring hyundai (she's 64!)

[Junkman]

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.

 

And what real difference does that make, when you do a few thousand miles a year?

A 2CV costs so much more to buy, it'd take years running the Jag to catch up.

The only thing costing the same on both cars would be the welding expenses, though.

[Lankytim]

I drive an old barge which has full fat road tax and quite pricey insurance BUT it runs on cheap waste veg oil and does 40-50MPG. I recon it must be cheaper to run than a moped or something.

[mercrocker]

I worked with a bloke who had some 4wd sodomy (cant remember what) after losing 7K on a Honda of some description then went and bought a Micra which, he reasoned, "cost him nothing" because driving it to work costs so much less than the 4wd thing.   He couldn't understand my scepticism until I showed him my calculations which were something like him having to drive to work and back 87 times a week to make his sums work.   Now, if he had said he LIKED driving his 4wd, his Honda or even the Nissan I would have understood.   But he didn't, he just bought them like freezers and they always made him miserable after about 6 months into a 4 year payment term.   Bonkers.

[Jikovron]

I find that acquiring a small engine car to save money requires an adjustment in relative terms to realise the saving,

 

i drove the metro 1.1 like everyday was an italian tune up at first but soon noted the car was only managing 36mpg on average over 500miles a week however if i drove it with utmost care pressing the accelerator the minimum required and pre empting hills and thus getting in peoples way the economy improved by 13mpg

 

the tank is 30litres and that meant going from 220miles to a tank all the way up to 315miles  

 

i did the same with the 3500 dolomite and it was relatively stable economy wise as it couldnt be thrashed without tediously scrubbing off speed so when i did try an eco run to work the costs only really dropped from £18 per 75miles down to £16 v the metros £12 italian tune up run down to £9

 

but all in all double the cost to have a wall of lb/fts makes up for double the fuel costs

[forddeliveryboy]

Best piece of advice on this topic is - the cheapest car is the car you currently own.

 

Unless it's a Ford.

 

 

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.

 

You may be missing another slightly subtle point here, beyond the fact that a 2cv costs a f'ing fortune cf old Jag, unless you buy a good original one in the first place - which also costs aff. Which is how much petrol do actually spend in traffic compared with on the open road? 15 minutes (a lifetime) in a traffic jam will use a small amount of fuel - even in a Jag - compared with 15 minutes on the open road. Unless you drive at 47mph.

 

One buys a car to suit. If you're a London taxi driver, you choose something which is simple, tough and diesel. If you drive to and from a wee town over a steep, large hill you'll choose something lightweight, with a small engine and decent brakes. Commute 70 miles down the M5 or A34? Then an XJ6 couldn't be finer. Or if you have no imagination, no money and no life* - an Octavia TDi which will go everywhere and always better 55mpg, unless you're a Caravan Club sort - then we're talking 2cv levels of economy.

 

You can even switch off a 2cv engine in a traffic jam, but unless your new coil (ignition) cost OMGHFM (standard ones are about 10% the quality of Citroën originals), it'll take 20 minutes to restart.

[Junkman]

but all in all double the cost to have a wall of lb/fts makes up for double the fuel costs

 

Well, in case of the 2CV vs. XJ6 example, the latter has more power by the factor of ten, yet the former needs half as much petrol, which clearly shows, how disproportionally high the consumption of smaller cars is in relation.

This becomes even more obvious, if a scientific method of measuring the consumption is applied, instead of those funny OMGMPGs, e.g. G/kWh.

 

When I said that all cars need pretty much the same around town, I should have said pretty much all cars. 2CV vs. XJ6 is really two extremes and they hardly constitute the majority of cars. But whether you have a 1400, 1600, 1800, or two litre, really doesn't make much of a difference around town.

 

On a different note, why is it, that when the running costs of a car are discussed, it is quickly reduced to the fuel consumption and nothing else?

However, even the insurance, tax, and maintenance costs don't make that much of a difference, unless a grand a year really counts (I appreciate it does for some, though).

 

The biggest factor in the running costs of a car is depreciation, a factor, that only Autoshiters and car collectors don't have to be concerned with, but zig millions of car owners do, i.e. the overwhelming majority.

Hence any XJ6 is still cheaper to run, than the cheapest new car, and any Bentley Turbo R is still cheaper to run, than a new family car.

 

Again, everything I wrote only makes sense, when you do reasonably little driving. The calculation is different, when you rack them up. But then again, if someone has to do a lot of miles, he usually either gets paid for it anyway, or does it for his business, and the calculation is different yet again.

[Cavcraft]

A Focus isn't a small car.

[garethj]

I've found that bigger cars are more expensive for consumables, things like tyres, exhaust, brakes etc.  But that's comparing something like a Fiesta with a Mondeo, Focus & Mondeo are probably very close.

 

I've also found that big cars use a lot more fuel around town because they're heavier so take more fuel to accelerate, which is what you're always doing in town.  If you can drive to suit the traffic you don't accelerate hard, but heavier cars take more fuel to get from 5mph to 20mph.  You can tell I drive in Cambridge...

 

But as said earlier, there are so many other variables that you've got to consider each case individually.  If you do loads of miles them mpg is significant, if you don't then repair costs or road tax is more important.  If it's a newer car then it's depreciation.  I'm sure there's an online running costs thing somewhere.

[spike60]

As someone who's regularly run biggish engine cars it's not just fuel, I had a 540i BMW as a daily for years and with local use it ate tyres, brakes suspension etc.  Our 525 TDS of the same year went about 3 times as far on set of tyres, less weight, less acceleration so you brake less, carry less speed into roundabouts etc. The Corvette stuffed brakes as well, too easy to use the acceleration. Not sure there'd be that much difference between the OP's 2 cars of choice tho.

[scooters]

No..The xm sips diesel and costs 140 a year to insure.

[Lankytim]

My XM is too new for cheapo classic insurance, I think I'm paying about £350 odd.

[cms206]

I'm paying £104 a year insurance and £235 a year tax each on cars with purchase prices of £15, £150 and £300. I budget £300 a year to get each through an MOT. I run part worn tyres where possible, scrapyard batteries and aim for an oil & filter change at the very least every six thousand miles. Taking that on board and using the most expensive of my Volvos as an example, first year before fuel stands at...
 

940 Turbo - £950

Fuel is consumed at a rate of one gallon for every 25 miles; on an average of 10,000 miles per year, I'll call that £2200 in pez. This brings us up to...

940 Turbo - £3150

Looking on Arnold Clark, approximately £11000 would buy me an equivalent vehicle - a 90,000 mile 2011 Volvo V70 D5 which would do 47.1mpg, allegedly, for however long it takes to go horribly wrong. After finance, that's nearly £14,000. Taking £14,000 as a start point, I'd be £2800 a year in finance, plus probably £250 quid a year in servicing, another £300 a year in MOT and £1100 in diesel I'd be looking at £4450 a year for a car I won't even own for another 48 months, which has already done 90k miles and will no doubt shit itself about three weeks before the five year finance agreement is up. Dropping down to £11,000 in total, I could get a three year old Focus 1.6 Zetec and even that'd stand me more than the 940 does per year AND I still wouldn't own it at the end of the first year, plus I'd have insurance to pay on top of that.

I run a big ugly Volvo 'cos they're cheap, not a horrendous drive, well equipped, useful, comfortable and mechanically pretty simple; it's mine so if it shits itself I can sack it off without worrying about still paying finance on it, and I'm not worried about leaving it anywhere in case it gets hit.

I couldn't buy a decent Focus or Astra for £300 which hadn't been abused/farmed, even with Cavcraft's excellent finance terms and because I'm only 27, insurance is still £bumrape for them too. Think I'll stick to big old barges, though that may change 'cos SWMBO wants me to get an XJ40...

[320touring]

Think I'll stick to big old barges, though that may change 'cos SWMBO wants me to get an XJ40...

DO IT!

[cms206]

DO IT!

Don't you bloody start!

[jonny69]

Light cars definitely use less fuel than big cars in traffic. In stop-starting, simple physics works against the heavier vehicle pretty much no matter how efficient the engine. This is why a very light 2CV with an inefficient engine uses so little petrol compared to a Jag which is probably twice its weight. On the motorway you're comparing apples with oranges though; weight does not come into play particularly, apart from tyre drag. You're now comparing the car that has technology, gearing and aerodynamics on its side to make it go further. Frontal area is now a major player, so what you want to do is haul the engine and drivetrain out of a nice big motorway cruiser and shoehorn it into a small car. Win win.

[Lukas]

My Mazda 6 Estate with the 147hp 2 litre-petrol-engine and 5-speed-auto-box uses the same amount of fuel as my brothers Mazda 3 1.6 petrol with 5-speed-manual-box when I drive them.

 

Why? Because the smaller engine has to work harder and rev higher to maintain the same speeds as the more powerful, bigger engine. So it´s always the bigger engine for me, if there is a choice. Maybe, the Mazda 3 with the 2.0i engine would be the most frugal.

 

L

[messerschmitt owner]

when I bought my smart roadster, the cheaper tax and 50mpg more than compensated the huge fuel consumption from my Land Rover Dormobile and W123 230TE estate - one 15-20mpg, the other 22-32mpg. The fuel saving per month on fuel and road tax meant the brand new sub £9k smart cost £15 a month to own.

[forddeliveryboy]

Perhaps there are such things as efficient and inefficient cars? I expect >24mpg from a properly fast car, >34 from a large-engined estate towcar, >44 from anything else and >54 from a Octavia TDi. If I load Octavia up and tow, then mpg=36ish. If you attempt to go very fast, mpg dips and you don't go very fast, it just gets all noisy and uncomfortable.

 

So a CX Turbo with 230hp = 26mpg, 124 300TD = 36mpg, Renault 5/2cv/Dyane = 45mpg. That's driving each normally. If the CX was held below 70 then mpg would beat 30, 124 beats 40. If you're going to drive like that you may as well have an older Vauxhall Agila.

 

I've used friends vehicles and been amazed at their inefficiency - old Range Rovers (which were useless at towing a heavy thing, unlike a CX), Mercs with bigger petrol engines - barely faster than a good 124 oil burner on English roads but used almost twice the fuel (suppose they were designed for the autobahn and nowt else), BMWs - always costing in parts, trying to kill you in the wet (and thirsty in the process),

 

For overall top efficiency, I vote the 2cv and Dyane. So long as you haven't a long motorway commute. In the real world, a good one will always better 45mpg (I once bettered 60mpg on a long run at 55-60mph), always make you smile, hardly ever need attention beyond routine servicing and maintenance, carry more than a Sierra estate, tackle off-road tracks better than many 4x4s (and at twice the speed), hustle along sinewy B-roads far more rapidly than most would ever believe and carry a King-size double bed (with mattress) from Ikea - which my girlfriend was assured wouldn't fit into a large estate car. A well-meaning father recently replaced his daughter's 2cv with the smallest-engined Fabia, she's not only upset with having such a miserable car but also having to feed it more unleaded, to the tune of over £500 a year more.

[saucedoctor]

When I was schlepping up and down to Dublin (228 mile round trip), I got myself a Hyundai Getz diesel, nearly new. After about 2 weeks it was driving me nuts. Don't get me wrong, the Getz is an excellent wee car, but driving long distances is wearing. I changed it for a 2006 Audi A6 3.0 TDi Quattro. That thing drank like George Best, but the journey was much more bearable. And I terrorised A4s on the motorway.

[Sloth in a bowl]

Sorry all; the business analyst in me can't resist adding to this thread.

 

The costs for running a car have to be split to their component parts as different cars cost different amounts for each part so roughly the costs are:

Depreciation, Fuel, Insurance and breakdown cover, Tax, Servicing, Repairs and MoT

 

Depreciation - Roughly 20% of the cars current worth in the next 12 months. Big or small it doesn't matter, it's just the reality of the cars current worth.

If you change your car every 3 years, divide by 6 and that is the annual cost, if you change more often, it's higher, if you change less often, it's lower

 

Fuel - Fuel is near as dam it £6.00 per gallon so if you do 40mpg you spend 15p per mile at 30mpg you spend 20p per mile. Big cars drink more than small cars, face it, accept it, move on.

 

Insurance - Once you are 30 then this as more to do with where you live than anything else. But basically we are in the lap of the Gods come insurance renewal time.

 

Breakdown cover - The same for everybody

 

Tax - Small cars are cheaper but the saving is usually small (£100/year), there are some bad combo's of big engines and wrong years (2003 rings a bell) to avoid

 

Servicing - We don't dealer service and know to search for reasonable parts so the only difference in cost here is the amount of oil a car takes which is naff all.

 

Repairs - Big or small we know the bill is out of proportion to the reality of the problem however, cars that were expensive when new often have higher parts charges for no good reason.

 

MoT - The same for everybody

 

So the two biggies are:

 

The fuel difference. It counts for a lot more if you do 20,000 miles a year rather than 5,000 mile per year.

e.g. 25mpg vs 45mpg 

at 5,000 miles per year is £1200 vs £666 (£533 difference)

at 20,000 miles per year is £4800 vs £2666 (£2133 difference)

 

Expensive buy vs cheap buy, depreciation at 20% on a £10,000 car - on a £800 car

Year 1 - £2000                                           £160

Year 2 - £1600                                           £128

Year 3 - £1280                                           £102

Cheap car saves £4500 over 3 years or average of £1500 per year

 

Everything else combined will be within a few hundred notes per year, unless you buy a complete wreck that needs loads of welding.

[Guest Lord Sward]

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

Its worse that that; its repeatedly trotted out within the hallowed pages of Car Mechanics.

 

From experience a Fiesta costs more to buy that the equivalent Mondeo with regard to age/miles.

 

The Mondeo will cost pennies more to service.  Both take 4.5 litres of the same oil, all the (after market) filters are the same to the nearest 10p.

 

But because the Mondeo was engineered for bigger engines and grander things, it was also (less) ruthlessly built down to a cost. Bigger brakes last longer, wider tyres scrub less, gearboxes are more accepting of abuse thanks to bigger bearings.  Tyres, although 205s are very common and cost a tenner more than a 185 Fiesta tyre for example.

 

But the difference in pleasure of driving is massive.  Even leaping from a Focus to a Mondeo is eye opening.  Refinement, power, driving pleasure, practicality.  So the Mondeo will give 33mpg.  The Fiesta 38mpg. So whats that? 

 

If you're buying on finance, then  the difference is gone as the interest payments on the bigger loan needed to buy the (more worn out) Fiesta will put paid to it.  Bottle green Mondeo 1.8 LXs all round.  Thats my advice.

[Cavcraft]

Obviously the point everyone* wants to make here is that a Fiesta 1.3 is the ideal economical small car AND instantly turns you into a wizard's sleeve magnet.

 

If only we knew someone selling one. If only.

[mercrocker]

I skate around the whole MPG by neither giving a toss or ever bothering to find out what any of mine do.....I drive 'em, I fill 'em and I ride my treader whenever I need to do less than 5 mile trips.   If I want to stop for a meal or a night out without costing more than being at home I take the camper, if I want to waft up to Derbyshire without changing gear, I take the Merc.  I am not going to talk about welding costs, tho!    Point is, Junkman has it right - depreciation is the biggest factor and you have to ignore some pretty big elephants in the room before committing to another car just for MPG or road tax considerations.

[320touring]

Don't you bloody start!

Get it bought. Your burd is correct in this instance and you should jump at the chance;)

[Lord Sterling]

I skate around the whole MPG by neither giving a toss or ever bothering to find out what any of mine do...I drive 'em, I fill 'em....If I want to waft up to Derbyshire without changing gear, I take the Merc. Point is, Junkman has it right - depreciation is the biggest factor and you have to ignore some pretty big elephants in the room before committing to another car just for MPG or road tax considerations.

I must admit, I am the same. I have never, ever looked at a car from financial "saving" point of view. Every car I have ever bought or ran have been over 2.0. I buy these cars because I like them, not because of fuel savings or tax reductions. Of course there is a limit to what I can spend as I'm not the type that easily attracts money.

 

I recently bought a Rover 827 Coupe, it's an auto which apparently drinks more petrol than a manual, I don't care, I enjoy wafting from one place to another, not driving like my tail is on fire or driving "economically".

 

My Coupe though is equipped with LPG and is just entitled to a Classic insurance policy. I'm not so sure the LPG really helps as its just another fuel tank on board as I found out with with my first 827 which was also LPG equipped.

 

Too many people these days who justify thier purchases of smaller/diesel cars on "financial" grounds still think that a smaller car will save them money without really doing their research and calculations properly.

[Lukas]

My brother in law told me recently, that he will be selling his 2003 Audi A4 2.0i (worth ~ 5000€) and get a 2012 Toyota Auris Hybrid (~ 16.000€) because it´s so much cheaper to run (3 litres less petrol/100km). Until I told him it´s not only the cost of petrol and the cheaper tax (less power, less tax = Austria), he should think about the depreciation.

 

He keeps his A4 and has booked a nice holiday.

[scooters]

The cheapest car on fuel I own is the 2.1 td. 80lt tank. Drove the 370 miles from Tiverton to Hexham on 1/2 a tank of diesel.

 

The 244 gets pooled about town and on shortish under 30 mile runs. No idea what I'm getting from it. I tend to drive it like a giffer. Probably low 20 s in town given its a carburettor. .although it is a Zenith and has several features that focus on efficiency. Despite the gas the coat of 244 motoring is seriously cheap. .400 to buy, 60 a year to insure, parts are cheap tyres are cheap. It's comfortable. Ticks all the shite boxes and practical.

 

CX25 Gti. ..lucky to get 24 mpg on a motorway run. 3 speed auto box never the most efficient system. ..

[forddeliveryboy]

Oof, my (petrol) Turbo would struggle to 30 if treated to semi-sensible speeds on a motorway run. The Maikonics one generally did 24. But surgery on my left leg could cost far more than the fuel I've saved.

 

* edit - to be straight, any left knee knackeredness was inflicted by driving a Transit repeatedly round a town.

[andy18s]

In 2002 we were running an old G reg 3.5 v8 disco.fuel was around 75ppl and it ate it at 12 mpg. we were putting £90 in it a week just on the school run...ANYTHING ELSE is now considered economical.....lol. T5 is currently getting about 100 for £20 in fuel but it is getting ragged a bit