Electric cars.

[MashBag]

But early in life of second lease, purchase started to work out cheaper, as depreciation slows down so much.

The manufactures are clearly doing it for our benefit and not there's

 

[gavp1979]

Possibly but until they do….

Buy a second hand ice car instead I am struggling to see your argument in this, if you are used to buying cheap second hand ice cars then surely you understand that somebody first needs to have paid full price for it when it was new and then you wait until it has deprecated enough for you to be happy with the value, why would that be any different with an EV?

 

[Alastair70]

Assuming it meets your requirements beyond being EV

You’re moving the goalposts Justin. Your initial point was about cost. My position is that the cost argument belongs to EV’s. If you want to add caveats, then the argument changes. If your requirement is performance, running costs, ULEZ or business benefits then it’s still EV’s. You equally pick different requirements so that the needle swings towards ICE. On purely a cost front, the cheapest new car to buy, insure, run and maintain is an EV.

 

[MashBag]

Buy a second hand ice car instead I am struggling to see your argument in this, if you are used to buying cheap second hand ice cars then surely you understand that somebody first needs to have paid full price for it when it was new and then you wait until it has deprecated enough for you to be happy with the value, why would that be any different with an EV?

Perhaps a bit more careful... Because of the battery replacement cost.

 

[MashBag]

On purely a cost front, the cheapest new car to buy, insure, run and maintain is an EV.

Surely no-one buys PURELY on cost?

 

[Alastair70]

Surely no-one buys PURELY on cost?

No, of course not. But I was specifically addressing the comment that EV‘s are too expensive.
Battery lifespan wouldn’t be a concern of mine if I was buying second hand, even with my current mileage.

 

[Benfleet Brewery]

Perhaps a bit more careful... Because of the battery replacement cost.

On Twitter, Elon Musk explained that Tesla car batteries should last for 300,000 to 500,000 miles or 1,500 battery charge cycles. That's between 22 and 37 years for the average car driver, who, according to the Department of Transportation (DOT), drives 13,476 miles per year.

 

[dad_of_jon]

On Twitter, Elon Musk explained that Tesla car batteries should last for 300,000 to 500,000 miles or 1,500 battery charge cycles. That's between 22 and 37 years for the average car driver, who, according to the Department of Transportation (DOT), drives 13,476 miles per year.

when the powertrain of any vehicle outlives the bodywork and interior of the car that is impressive and all you can ask for really (assuming 10 years before rust becomes an issue.)

 

[hoppyscotty]

Pay interest instead? Confused.

Absolutely......if you have cash then you're better off paying interest than spending your cash. People love to evicerate rich people, but rich people are not daft...they'd never waste cash on depreciating assets. Even if they have the cash in the bank they'd never buy a house, a yacht, a private jet with cash - they'll always finance it. It's tax efficient for starters. You can leverage cash to earn you an income and borrowing money and paying interest on that enables you to acquire the assets you need to earn that income. And you save your cash to invest and earn even more income from that. Cash has value so down flush it down the drain buying a car.

Alot easier if you have hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds at your disposal, but no reason why, if you have even a modest amount of cash like a couple of tens of grand, you still cant use that cash to invest and build up more and it grows exponentially and alot more savvy than blowing it on a Citroen (nothing in particular against Citroens...but not as if you're throwing your cash at a Lamborghini or something to achieve a life long dream or something).

Allocating a few hundred quid a month to have access to a car is a reasonable thing to do...like paying for the NHS really. You're paying a fee to access a service. There are no benefits whatsoever to actually owning a car. Like I said, cars are a drain on money no matter how you finance them...unless you bought an E-type Jag 30 years ago and have sat on it since.

Nothing wrong with debt so long as you manage it well and millions of millionaires have been made by leveraging debt. How do you think you set up a successful business? you have to borrow money....and when your business grows you borrow more money to fund expansion, and when your business expands you borrow more money to buy up your competition and capture more of the market etc.....Before you know it you're Jeff Bezos and you're richer than the banks you borrowed money from.

Put it this way...if it were not for borrowing and interest and loans and investments none of us would have pensions and would be working till the day we died...where do you think most of the capital comes from when we get loans and mortgages? comes from our pension funds and we expect a decent level of return.....

 

[JockyBrewer]

I'm not sure I agree with you @hoppyscotty.

If you can borrow money against an asset at an equal or lower rate than you can get as a return on investment, then what you're saying makes sense, although in reality it's hard to achieve.

Equally if you need the liquidity then it makes sense to borrow against an asset. It's why most people do it.

But aside from the two cases above, borrowing against a depreciating asset has no benefit over paying cash for it up front (that I can see). Either way you're stuck owning the depreciating asset. Hiring/leasing a depreciating asset on the other hand can make sense as you're not stuck with the asset and haven't lost any liquidity (although that depends upon the lease cost).

Alternatively if you own a company then put the asset in the company's ownership and you can reduce the company's tax bill.

 

[Bernie]

Hiring/leasing a depreciating asset on the other hand can make sense as you're not stuck with the asset and haven't lost any liquidity (although that depends upon the lease cost).

Alternatively if you own a company then put the asset in the company's ownership and you can reduce the company's tax bill.

Hiring makes sense in that one is only losing while the vehicle is temporarily in ones possession. Which hire company would run at a loss with vehicles it owns?

Marking assets to a company is not as easy as it sounds.

 

[Old Fart At Play]

Absolutely......if you have cash then you're better off paying interest than spending your cash.

Not necessarily. I looked at loans, and the interest rate on the best loan was higher than the interest rate my savings were earning. I have a low risk appetite, so my savings are not in sticks and shares.

I'm retired now, so I'm not interested in using my capital to try to accumulate more wealth - I would rather spend my time on other things.

For me, cash worked out cheaper than a loan ( and much cheaper than PCP or a lease).

Edit: have just checked current rates in case things have changed wildly. They haven't. Typical car loan (> £25K) is 8%. Typical savings rate is 5%. So on a £25K car it would cost an extra £750 pa with a loan.

 

[MashBag]

On Twitter, Elon Musk explained that Tesla car batteries should last for 300,000 to 500,000 miles or 1,500 battery charge cycles. That's between 22 and 37 years for the average car driver, who, according to the Department of Transportation (DOT), drives 13,476 miles per year.

And we all know volkwagens do 1000 mpg

 

[MashBag]

I cannot I agree with you @hoppyscotty.

There are times to use debt.
There are times to use cash.
One size fits... Er... nobody.

For me, cash worked out cheaper than a loan ( and much cheaper than PCP or a lease).

Yes indeed.

If you can borrow money against an asset at an equal or lower rate than you can get as a return on investment, then what you're saying makes sense, although in reality it's hard to achieve.

Absolutely and I do just that.

One very good book on this subject, is by Rob Dix..
The Price of Money: How to Prosper in a Financial World That’s Rigged Against You

 

[JockyBrewer]

when the powertrain of any vehicle outlives the bodywork and interior of the car that is impressive and all you can ask for really (assuming 10 years before rust becomes an issue.)

It's down to the many fewer moving parts - you don't have pistons flinging around thousands of times per minute, and in most cases no gearbox at all.

 

[MashBag]

when the powertrain of any vehicle outlives the bodywork and interior of the car that is impressive and all you can ask for really (assuming 10 years before rust becomes an issue.)

Strikes me as wasteful over engineering.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

dad_of_jon said:
when the powertrain of any vehicle outlives the bodywork and interior of the car that is impressive and all you can ask for really (assuming 10 years before rust becomes an issue.)

It looks like steel may be ditched in favour of aluminium.

 

[JockyBrewer]

Strikes me as wasteful over engineering.

I think the body/chassis of most modern cars should last 20 years before rust becomes an issue, so really this means the engine is keeping up with the rest of the car.

 

[MashBag]

I think the body/chassis of most modern cars should last 20 years before rust becomes an issue, so really this means the engine is keeping up with the rest of the car.

And the batteries?

 

[JockyBrewer]

And the batteries?

On Twitter, Elon Musk explained that Tesla car batteries should last for 300,000 to 500,000 miles or 1,500 battery charge cycles. That's between 22 and 37 years for the average car driver, who, according to the Department of Transportation (DOT), drives 13,476 miles per year.

Although there’s a guy out there that’s done 1.2 million miles in his 2014 Tesla Model S, and he’s gone through 14 motors and 4 battery packs.

https://insideevs.com/news/699413/highest-mileage-tesla-model-s-3-batteries-14-motors/amp/