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

It was given before you started whining.

Heck wrong as well as dumb.

Another bet lost.

OK. Where?

Here's a couple to be going on with:

What was the first bet then?

Chris

What would that be, 4 and a half thousand on Auto-trader?

I like Golfs but it seems a hell of a lot. Are they worth that much or would you do better getting a new Astra TDI for a lot less?

Serious question, btw.

All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players

"Don >" In general terms, how much more expensive is it to run a biggish car

my wife uses a luxury car for a low yearly mileage, it does 19 to the gallon, maintenance is negligible and comfort is extremely high, especially if stuck in traffic. If the mileage is low then go for comfort.

[...]

I think there might be some truth in this. Fiestas are good, but the "Mondeo sector" is very competitive for reliability and long mileages.

Also buying second hand I think there's a bit of a premium on cars like Fiestas since they are low insurance. If you're not that young etc. and the insurance isn't much then bigger cars can be excellent value.

If you only do 4k miles a year efuel conomy's not that big a deal. What's the difference between 40mpg and 45mpg? It comes to about 11 gallons a year, or 45 pounds at 90p a litre. I suppose 45 pounds isn't that little but over a year's motoring costs lost in the noise.

Plus you can fit more stuff in the back of a Mondeo.

"Don >" On the other hand .... is all this stuff just nonsense and wishful

I`d say that my Passatt is more economical than my g/fs Polo. Mines a TDI, hers is an SDI. On motorway journeys especially, the TDI just has a lot more pull, as well as costing less in fuel. Even running round town it seems to be as economical, plus you get the advantage of a lot more room in the car, as well as more room for crumple zones and the like, which are always good :-)

For me I decided it was worth paying more for a bigger car, simply because with the milage I`m doing I`m more likely to be involved in a collision, no matter how good my driving skills may be, there`s always someone else who can just crash into you with no warning. For the lower mileage this becomes less of a concern, but the added comfort of a bigger car can start to be worth thinking about.

I think you want a big car, so just buy one :-)

Buy a decent quality diesel and it will have an auxiliary heater of some description.

Although of course this is detrimental to fuel consumption. :)

Except direct injection and onwards benefit from timing differences when cold, which reduces efficiency. Some engines are run at a higher cold idle too.

On the other hand short haul trips and cheap fuel can be murder on injectors. Injectors every 60,000 miles, that pays for a lot of fuel.

It's a bigger compromise than you're suggesting.

"Don >" On the other hand .... is all this stuff just nonsense and wishful

If spending less is preferable and for 4,000 miles a year your main cost is going to be depreciation... Mondeos lose money quicker than Fiestas. Focii are a compromise.

"Don >" In general terms, how much more expensive is it to run a biggish car

Okay, I'm coming in quite late on this, but having owned a 2.0L Mondeo (mk

2) myself for a few years, I thought I'd make some comments about that car. Hopefully these are valid for the newer model - I'd assume things have improved if anything.

Fuel economy on the Mondeo was very consistent, which is unsual for a 2.0L, with only a few mpg between urban/short trips and motorway driving. Urban driving never seemed to drop much below 32 mpg, which is good, whilst motorway driving came in at around 34, which is a pit pants to be honest. I'm guessing the low gearing hurt the motorway economy - the car certainly felt like it could do with a 6th gear, that's for sure.

You mentioned quality of parts and, yes, I have to say the Mondeo was absolutely superb in this department. The only non-service items I ever had to change were front brake pads after more than 50K miles, which I thought was bloody amazing, and suspension bushes after 60K miles. Even the plugs lasted past 50K. Cambelt doesn't get changed until 110K as I recall, so never did that, and the exhaust still looked new when I sold the car at 85K miles. All in all, maintenance costs were the lowest of any car I've ever owned.

Versus a Fiesta/Focus? Not sure, since I've only had those as hire/courtesy cars. Personally I didn't find the Fiesta's interior a particularly nice/comfortable place to be, though whether that would matter for mostly short trips is open to question. The Focus (mk 1) didn't feel much different to the Mondeo in that department, albeit with a slight air of "cheapness" about the some of the materials.

Regards, David

There are indeed *lots* of factors. And they don't always work intuitively.

A long time ago I switched from a 1.1 Clio to a Volvo 440 1.7. I got significant decreases in insurance, fuel costs, safety, repair bills and driving-about-in-a-tinny-little-crapbox stress.

Because you've raised the point of 'depreciation'... look up ^ there, there it is.

And the point is, Mk4 Golf TDIs seem to be really holding their money compared to the equivalent Focus.

-- JackH

But you were suggesting that *I* compare the residuals of the Focus with a Golf TDI!

1. *I'm* not the OP.
2. I have no intention of changing my car in the forseeable future.
3. My Focus is petrol, so pointless comparing it with a diesel anything.
4. Even if the depreciation of a Golf was significantly less than the Focus, I wouldn't want one. They are lardy, expensive to maintain, unreliable POS. Oh, and terribly boring to drive.

The OP asked specifically about the cost of owning Fiesta/Focus/Mondeo. I mentioned depreciation purely in that context.

Comparing the depreciation rate of a Golf or any other car is completely irelevant to this topic.

Chris

I've yet to replace any injectors on any of the Mk3 Golfs I've had - all have had what one might consider to be reasonably mileages bar one.

Not something that seems to affect the VAG 1.9TDi... or if it is, it's not something filtering through to sites like Car Survey, from what I've seen of the reviews on there (and no... I've not read each and every last one on there, but the ones I have in the past haven't seemed to mention these kind of problems).

Maestor and Montego TDs on the otherhand... heh.

*shrug*

I'm merely going by my own experiences - YMMV, I'm currently running a KA - a small petrol, and a Golf TDi - a mid range diesel.

-- JackH

*Would* *A* *Chill* *Pill* *Be* *A* *Good* *Option* *Right* *Now*?

Maybe not, but just by chance what you drive, i.e: a Focus, is comparable to what I've recommended, i.e: a Mk4 Golf TDi

Good, good... nor would I if I'd lost *that* much money on what I already owned... ;-)

I wasn't specifically talking about *your* Focus, matey.

Just Focusii in general vs the comparable Mk4 Golf - A Focus TD has depreciated significantly more in recent years than the equivalent Mk4 Golf TDI

*shrug*

I didn't find my Mk4 'lardy'... and it would appear you've not discovered the merits of Euro Car Parts or GSF and the like if you're going to state as fact that they're dear to maintain - they are if you get sucked into having all servicing done by main dealers or some of the more unscrupulous independents out there...

As for unreliable... not in my experience.

*shrug* (again)

In your opinion, maybe.

I tend to run mine with one of those 'dodgy' tuning boxes you get off eBay and the like... big increase in grunt and a lot more it available lower down than standard - net result is pretty good increase in 0-60 and even better results in 'real world' overtaking etc.

Whilst never getting less than 45mpg...

If I want exciting, I take the bike. :-)

I hadn't realised that. I thought their cold running requirements were at least similarly juicy.

The message from Richard Polhill contains these words:

It's one of the reasons why they sound like a bag of nails when cold.

What?

BTW, you seem to be accidentally hitting Shift-8 when you type. Perhaps you need to calm down...

The OP was not asking for recommendations as to what he should buy. He specifically wanted advice on the differences in running costs between what he perceived as smaller cars versus larger ones.

I've no idea how little it's worth now; I paid 11,500UKP as an ex-demo (14,500 list). That was in August '99. I'm not sure that's an outrageous loss...

So which bit of "residuals of your Focus" did you not mean to type?

Largely due to the introduction of the much better Focus TDCi.

Again, why "you've"?

I'm trying to see it from the perspective of the OP, who was asking on behalf of someone else. I made the assumption, perhaps incorrectly, that the intended owner would not be a DIY type so parts prices from the companies you mention would not come in to the equation.

Of how many cars?

I have close contact with an employee of VW Assist. Mk 4 Golfs are less reliable than even the rest of VAG's products.

...and in the opinion of the majority of reviews of them of course.

None of which you would have to have done had you chosen a Focus in the first place of course ;-)

On the assumption you mean motorcycle (as opposed to push-bike), I'm afraid my two-wheel days are long...

Chris

Well, I reckon you've lost £9-£10k in that time.

Hardly insignificant, and more than the total cost of all of the vehicles I've paid my own money for. (£8200 - the difference mostly takes care of the cost of the bodywork restoration and respray of the

75, too)