Toby Mack Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 So is 33% really that bad? Agreed, the latest copy of which? backs this up. Average for tin tops is around 45% apparently. Some topping out at 50%. some real world figures: my 4 yr old modeo cost me a bit less than 5k and that was dealer rather trade. According to parkers it cost 17k in 2000. So some sucker paid 3k a year to own a modeo. Madness!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 My point precisely... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man On The Clapham Omnibus Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 It's a fair assumption that a normal mileage tintop traded in will lose 25% compound per annum, or as much as 33% p.a. compound if the mileage is high - say 25,000 a year. That's why I, for one, never buy new. I let some other mug lose all the initial losses. On £15000 that's £11250 after a year and £8450 after two, and £6325 after three. Not too far away from the truth, surely. On that basis, a three year old car halves in value, in broad terms. Almost exactly what Blatters said. Don't even think about working out a cost per mile on 10,000 miles a year if you want to stay sane, especially if you factor in petrol, servicing, insurance, finance costs, etc. My company cars, when I had them back in the eighties, were depreciated totally over four years - down to a book value of squat, zilch, nought, nothing. That was how the (PLC) accountants wanted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Don't even think about working out a cost per mile on 10,000 miles a year if you want to stay sane, especially if you factor in petrol, servicing, insurance, finance costs, etc. Yup. I *never* consider how much per mile I'm paying to run any of my cars. I consider ALL the money I spend on them to be lost, so if I recover *anything* if/when I sell them, I'm happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad lon Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 OK Clap.Just thought I'd hoist you up again to the annals of fame.....do the same for me one day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stanton Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Can you name any car that will lose less than 33% in 3 years? Morgan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man On The Clapham Omnibus Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 Mad Lon, sure will pardner Morgans don't depreciate, they get woodworm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeylegend Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Can you name any car that will lose less than 33% in 3 years? Morgan? Ford GT40. The new version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Can you name any car that will lose less than 33% in 3 years? Morgan? Ford GT40. The new version. We'll see... Short term there may well be a premium, but I doubt there will ever be a return to the halcyon days of the 80's when some cars would be considered an investment. Besies which, a GT40 could hardly be considered a production car in the same way that even a Westfield or a C******m could, as there are likely to be less GT40's in total than either marque. It'll still lose money in 3 years time though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeylegend Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Only mentioned the GT40 because the question was name ANY car. Exclusivity might help. Wonder how much you would have to pay for a Mclaren F1 now?. Assuming you could find one for sale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Only mentioned the GT40 because the question was name ANY car. Er, no it wasn't... 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...
Monkeylegend Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Can you name any car that will lose less than 33% in 3 years? Morgan? Thats the quote I was responding to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Oh yeah... Really bad turn of phrase from me... although in my head I was referencing the earlier question... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeylegend Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 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? By definition any Reasonably Common car is bound to suffer significant depreciation over a three year period. 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.