Monkeylegend Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 However, do you think it's right that somebody who I think owns neither a Westfield nor a Caterham, but a Locost (Bobw), should post something that causes such a debate between our two groups? Don't see any reason why not. Bobw looks like he is interested in 7 type cars. I don't suppose he anticipated the thread would develop in the way it did. Kept me amused anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Actually, I'm with Ken. We shouldn't feed the trolls. Nothing good ever comes of it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CateringVan Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 ..... but Caterhams are better than Westfields and therefore well worth the extra money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felters Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Not sure that all Caterham owners agree with you... is it just me or is there a wonderful irony in a Caterham owner moaning about some brands charging more than others for the same part? Just lifted this off the other sides board Are you suggesting people should pay for things based on thier abbility to pay, rather than the cost of providing a service? Taxation is different as this is part of a social contract between people and the government. However I find it odd when vendor (insert your poison here) flog stuff for more than another vendor does, just because of "brand". Take your pick from memory, harddrives, or VW parts in Porsches? Hiking the price for a generic item (like a VW part in a porker) say's 2 things to me, a) I'm taking the p*** out my customer and b) I do not have a hold on the price of keeping goods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 ..... but Caterhams are better than Westfields and therefore well worth the extra money Now dont start that again anyway your wrong!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 incidentley a freind of mine recentley sold his car back to Caterham he had owned it for three years its done 4,500 miles and was in mint condition he lost nearley £10,000 in depreciation! Ouch! thats painfull Now I understand you have depeciation on any car but over three years it cost him a Westfield! So I think that puts pay to the "they dont depreciate like a Westfield does" argument Because the depreciation you do have you could buy a Westy with!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 It seems to me that most of us Se7eners forget that depreciation should be measured as a percentage of the purchase price, rather than as an absolute value. IMHO, depereciation between C******m's and Westfields is pretty close, but I do think C******m's hold their a (VERY) little better than a Westfield. However, anyone that has a *serious* eye on residuals of a Se7en is missing the point entirely... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 It seems to me that most of us Se7eners forget that depreciation should be measured as a percentage of the purchase price, rather than as an absolute value. IMHO, depereciation between C******m's and Westfields is pretty close, but I do think C******m's hold their a (VERY) little better than a Westfield. However, anyone that has a *serious* eye on residuals of a Se7en is missing the point entirely... But 10 grand! You have to admit thats steep! if it was my car I think ide want tojunp of a cliff espesially as he re-morgaged his house to afford to buy it in the first place so take into consideration the payments and he has lost alot of money. I know the house payments cant be lumped in with the cars depreciation but its a factor that you have to look at as a whole. Personelly I think he should have kept it but there you go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 10 grand on a 40 grand car is 25%, which is pretty much normal depreciation for a 3 year old car. Actually, it's probably a bit better than most cars out there, especially performance cars. This is why it's important to focus on the percentage, and not the monetary value... Let me put it this way. Can you name a reasonably common car that devalues less than 25% of it's new value after 3 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Fair point but the car originally cost him £28,500. You can see why im suprised Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 OK, so a little over 33% of it's new value. My depreciation question still stands. Can you name any car that will lose less than 33% in 3 years? Most new cars lose 20% the minute they leave the forecourt. 3 year depreciation I reckon is around the 50% mark on all but the most speial of vehicles. So is 33% really that bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 not of the top of my head but it still seems like a lot of money to lose its cost him £2.22p per mile thats alot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenE Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 You're scraping the barrel now James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 You're scraping the barrel now James How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 'Cos your depreciation argument doesn't stand up. It never has, and believe me I've heard it trotted out by C******m owners when talking about Westfields, and vice versa. If you focus on the true depreciation value as a percentage (the *only* way to calculate it fairly) then generally C******m's and Westfields fare pretty well against just about everything else, and are pertty even compared to each other... My Rolex however is depreciating quite slowly by comparison, and a recent price rise for new ones has helped the value of mine considerably... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.