Is a big car really much less economical than a small car?

I did. And?

That makes it more efficient how exactly?

No, they are looking to buy one from four to six years old. Ever compared the prices of four years old diesel Focuses to petrol ones?

No, I didn't think so...

Chris

[...]

I can't imagine that if the OP were to choose a Fiesta, a service would cost quite that much... :-)

Chris

My TD has a service interval of 30,000 miles.

And the on board service thingy does come out at 30,000 for me (mostly motorway miles, Leeds Hull) Bob

When buying our 03 Fiesta there was no noticable difference in price between petrol and diesel. The Fiesta 1.4 diesel does 60 mpg on short trips (about

8p a mile), or about 48mpg on the motorway, about the same as my 2.0 diesel Signum. And road tax is £35 a year on the Fiesta.

Bob

Bob

[Rude comment snipped]

The OP was not asking about big car/small car running costs in general terms; he asked specifically about the comparative running costs of Mondeo/Focus/Fiesta. The comments you made about the relative costs of your unspecified vehicles wouldn't have helped him at all. That's why I pointed out, politely and with a smiley, that the Fiesta wouldn't have that sort of service cost.

I could have been much ruder, but it's not in my nature.

Chris

Read the subject.

But I'm guessing it isn't 6 years old.

No, *you* read the content!

Chris

Maybe I could have worded the above better.

What I meant is that because a diesel is using basically the same amount of fuel when it's cold as it will do to do the same journey when it's hot, it's more even more efficient than the equivalent cold petrol engine than when the petrol engine is warmed up, as the petrol engine will be using more fuel when cold than it will do when hot.

And as for thermostats... having had a Maestro TD with a knackered one in the past in the middle of winter, I can see exactly why they're fitted. ;-)

-- JackH

I recently paid =A3725 for my Mk3 Golf TDI estate... shocking price premium over the equivalent petrol (which by comparision uses twice as much fuel when booted and has less effortless grunt at your disposal).

I think I can cope with the financial burden of more oil changes (but less crap like spark plugs and leads to change)...

I'll be upgrading to a Mk4 Golf TDI at some stage in the next year... looking at the residuals of these over the equivalent petrol, even though the outlay will be that much more than for my current one, it'll still make financial sense, never mind the fact I prefer the way they drive.

-- JackH

Having had a Mk. III Golf and a Mk. IV (actually a Bora) I recommend making sure you really want a Mk. IV before "upgrading". IME the Mk. III is a much nicer car, especially with the TDi engine.

s:

I used to have a Mk4... which my dad bought off me and still has, so I get to see it on a regular basis and have lived with both models for a reasonable amount of time.

Whilst if you look closely you can see where some corners have been cut quality wise, overall the Mk4 is a better car IME: much nicer interiors, slicker gear changes (whilst the gearbox lasts!), smoother ride, PD engines etc.

I wouldn't have a Bora, but only because I find saloons in general too restrictive when it comes to my occasional load lugging needs.

-- JackH

My TDI just did 24000 miles between services, and the service it just had is good for another 20,000 miles. Hardly a short service interval is it?

A round trip of 5 to 8 miles would mean a journey of 3 or 4 miles outbound and then the engine gets cold for a hour or two and then 3 or 4 miles again. No real chance of the car running while warmed op.

Interesting.

Yes, I had overlooked that completely.

What is Total Exp: £836.18 ?

Is this for petrol oil, tyres, etc or is it for repair costs?

Well, sort of "biggish" then. I tried not to say "big " because then we may get into discussions of 3.5 litre car and upwards. They are out of my league!

It's results like these which prompted me to ask the questions if there really was such a big gap as popular understanding seems to think.

Gawd, I am missing so much in fact. I have just realised about depreciation (which I thoight was similar because of some fualty logic to do with buying either smallish or biggish second hand at the same price). And of course as you mention there is insurance.

Perhaps, Don, you should just get what you want and not try to justify it in any other terms. ;-)

Have fun

And you also need to think with at least two heads to get the hang of depreciation. If you are buying new, then a small car will (probably) lose less in depreciation than a large car. However once a large car has depreciated like a stone in its first two to three years of life then depreciation can level off and the car is actually a bargain compared to smaller vehicles with their image of "economy and low insurance".

OTOH some large cars break the rules. I think at present the Chrysler

300C manages to be bother the fastest and the slowest depreciating vehicle on the roads. It's essentially an ugly Mercedes E-class, and since it costs about half the price of the Merc to start with, it starts out as good value. The diesel in particular depreciates slowly. The 5.7 petrol depreciates like a stone, but some models of the petrol version also defy logic and depreciate slowly.

If you want a rough and ready handle on relative costs of depreciation it's a good idea to have a look at monthly leasing costs. These tend to represent the depreciation + profit for the leasing company. They also represent things like "how good a deal can a company buying hundreds of cars get on a particular model?"

As was mentioned before Fester vs Mondeo is probably straightforward as is Corsa vs Vectra. Once you get into Mini vs Mitsubishi Outlander it could be more difficult.

You asked for assistance with your obvious lack of understanding of Usenet, but to be made in private to avoid embarassing you in public. Tough luck, make public comment, get public response. And I only do private lessons for payment.

[snip remaining self-congratulatory bollocks]