From: GB on
"DubDriver" <dubsdrive5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g0T7k.325$mA2.156(a)textfe.usenetserver.com...
>>>>> which cars hold their value best
>>>>
>>>> Ford Focus.
>>>
>>> Rubbish! The Ford Focus Style loses 43% of its value in the first year
>>> alone, compare that to say a VW Golf 1.9 TDI losing only 32% (figures
>>> for 2007). At that time both cars cost �15,045 but the Focus would we
>>> worth �1,613 less than the Golf after 1 year!
>>
>> Hang on a sec. One loses 4814 and the other loses 6469. These are both
>> astronomical figures.
>
> That's right, they are!
> http://www.uswitch.com/Press-Room/Index.aspx?downloadfile=NEW-CAR-OWNERS-LOSE-510%5B1%5D-EVERY-MONTH-IN-DEPRECIATION

Leaving aside the incredibly high 1st year depreciation on virtually any new
car, I *very* strongly suspect that that survey does not take into account
discounts available from dealers. Discounts are probably much, much higher
on the Ford than the VW and the difference may well account for nearly all
the 1613 difference you mentioned. The Ford loses 3773 over the following 3
years, which is 566 less than the 4339 on the VW. I expect you can get a
1500 discount on the Ford, compared to next to nothing on the VW.

Consequently, taking into account the initial discount, the depreciation on
the Ford may well be less than on the VW, especially when taken over 4 years
rather than 1. Certainly, it's pretty close, and as both cars lose around
9-10k, it seems to be a bit daft to quibble about the odd 1k difference.

Incidentally, although the %age loss on the BMW is smaller than the other
top 10 cars, because it is so much more expensive to begin with, the loss in
Pounds is around 50% higher than the others.

Be ever so careful before you shout 'Rubbish!', or some pedant will actually
check through your figures.



From: DubDriver on

"GB" <NOTsomeone(a)microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48601602$0$26088$db0fefd9(a)news.zen.co.uk...
> "DubDriver" <dubsdrive5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:g0T7k.325$mA2.156(a)textfe.usenetserver.com...
>>>>>> which cars hold their value best
>>>>>
>>>>> Ford Focus.
>>>>
>>>> Rubbish! The Ford Focus Style loses 43% of its value in the first year
>>>> alone, compare that to say a VW Golf 1.9 TDI losing only 32% (figures
>>>> for 2007). At that time both cars cost �15,045 but the Focus would we
>>>> worth �1,613 less than the Golf after 1 year!
>>>
>>> Hang on a sec. One loses 4814 and the other loses 6469. These are both
>>> astronomical figures.
>>
>> That's right, they are!
>> http://www.uswitch.com/Press-Room/Index.aspx?downloadfile=NEW-CAR-OWNERS-LOSE-510%5B1%5D-EVERY-MONTH-IN-DEPRECIATION
>
> Leaving aside the incredibly high 1st year depreciation on virtually any
> new car, I *very* strongly suspect that that survey does not take into
> account discounts available from dealers. Discounts are probably much,
> much higher on the Ford than the VW and the difference may well account
> for nearly all the 1613 difference you mentioned. The Ford loses 3773 over
> the following 3 years, which is 566 less than the 4339 on the VW. I expect
> you can get a 1500 discount on the Ford, compared to next to nothing on
> the VW.
>
> Consequently, taking into account the initial discount, the depreciation
> on the Ford may well be less than on the VW, especially when taken over 4
> years rather than 1. Certainly, it's pretty close, and as both cars lose
> around 9-10k, it seems to be a bit daft to quibble about the odd 1k
> difference.

Good point but what for example if we spend the extra Focus discount on
options to bring the price up to equal the Golf after discount, then after a
year the (presumed) better specced Focus will be worth less than the Golf!
The buyer will have still lost more money though I realise that in theory
the Focus buyer will have had the advantage of driving around during
ownership with more on board goodies!

> Incidentally, although the %age loss on the BMW is smaller than the other
> top 10 cars, because it is so much more expensive to begin with, the loss
> in Pounds is around 50% higher than the others.

True but safe to assume OP meant % rate of depreciation otherwise the answer
would be the cheapest car on the market!

> Be ever so careful before you shout 'Rubbish!', or some pedant will
> actually check through your figures.

Not my figures but U-Switch & What Car's.


From: Appelation Controlee on
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:23:05 +0100, DubDriver wrote:

-------------------8><
> Good point but what for example if we spend the extra Focus discount on
> options to bring the price up to equal the Golf after discount, then after a
> year the (presumed) better specced Focus will be worth less than the Golf!
> The buyer will have still lost more money though I realise that in theory
> the Focus buyer will have had the advantage of driving around during
> ownership with more on board goodies!

I thought it was better to buy a higher spec'd model than to lash out on
the same stuff as add-ons.
From: Tony (UncleFista) on

"DCA" <dca860MAPS(a)yahooMAPS.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9B38k.84678$P83.63102(a)newsfe20.ams2...
>> There's nothing actually wrong with the design of the Rover 1.8. The main
>> problem of the cylinder head gasket blowing was mainly caused by poor
>> assembly of the engine, on top of that the thermostat was poorly located
>> on some models and it was fitted to a vehicle much heavier than it was
>> originally designed for.
>>
>>
>>
> Regardless - the head gasket (and warped head too in many cases) is
> widespread.
> When you consider the many other smaller engines fitted to big vehicles
> that have no sign of issues - I'm afraid I can't agree with your summary.

You don't have to agree, but it doesn't stop it being the truth ;)

From: DCA on
Tony (UncleFista) wrote:
>
> "DCA" <dca860MAPS(a)yahooMAPS.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9B38k.84678$P83.63102(a)newsfe20.ams2...
>>> There's nothing actually wrong with the design of the Rover 1.8. The
>>> main problem of the cylinder head gasket blowing was mainly caused
>>> by poor assembly of the engine, on top of that the thermostat was
>>> poorly located on some models and it was fitted to a vehicle much
>>> heavier than it was originally designed for.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Regardless - the head gasket (and warped head too in many cases) is
>> widespread.
>> When you consider the many other smaller engines fitted to big
>> vehicles that have no sign of issues - I'm afraid I can't agree with
>> your summary.
>
> You don't have to agree, but it doesn't stop it being the truth ;)
But it is fact! Too many failures for it to be an opinion issue.