J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Spotted this on Ebay,

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/2005-05-MG-ZT-...QQcmdZViewItem

Discuss !

logiclee

If you plan to keep it forever then I'd have the MG.

If you plan to swap it next year then go for the Fabia.

Cheers
Lee

Andy M3

lol - take the Fabia and give me £5k. Or buy the MG and keep it 3 years, same difference

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

The depreciation on the Fabia is really good at the moment but I suspect like anything values will start to soften a bit so I dont think the prices of a 3 year old one in three years will be as high as a 3 year old one now, still it will be better than the MG.

Saying that, just checked and 3 year old ZT diesels are about 8 grand (bit of a bugger if you paid anywhere near list) and 3 year old Fabia's are about 8 grand, I suppose that doesnt say which either actually went for though.

Rabid

For God's sake you won't really save anything buying a diesel.

Go and buy a petrol car with a meaty engine and use the money you save to pay for the added costs.

Diesels are best for company users only IMO.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Rabid, I see your point, I have a Saab which kind of qualifies, as I paid about 3 grand less for the Petrol one compared to the equivalent year and mileage diesel model, plus the fact its poverty spec.

Worked out that on just going to work I would save 700 quid a year, so with my own mileage about a grand or a bit less.

Eventually I would save but not for a while, M3 it is then !

hades

IF you're using it just for yourself, why cart around all the extra bulk etc of the MG - buy the skoda. If you're taking the familly out regularly, lots of long journeys 4 up with luggage, again it's a simple answer - buy the MG; it's a hell of a lot of car for the money. Whilst depreciation is an issue, you're getting a virtually new MG for something like half original list price, so it's already done a lot of the depreciating before you buy it!

Rabid - I assume your username means you are frothing at the mouth and not making much sense? I agree for lower mileage users, a cheaper petrol variant of the same car probably does make more sense than the diesel. However, the cheaper petrol cars don't generally have a "meaty engine", or no "meatier" than the diesel anyway - unless you go for the expensive models, so you clearly won't save any money.

If you're doing lots of miles, there is no question that diesel makes sense - and plenty of peple have private cars at high mileage, it isn't just company users. Up until a couple of months ago, I was doing 40k miles / year. Having a fairly cheap and cheerful turbo diesel was saving me over £100 / week in comparison to using my "petrol car with a meaty engine" which stayed in the garage.

martyrobertsdj

iTrader: (1)

I've just changed from a 1998 Impreza Turbo Wagon to a 2004 Fabia vRS.

Now had it remapped to aprox 170bhp and it is wicked. It was pretty nippy before, but I think I'd honestly say that it is now as fast as the Scooby in certain situations. All out point to point, the Scoob would have it hands down I'm sure, but the Fabia certainly ain't slow!!

Before remap I got 50.6 mpg (actual, not from the computer).......time will tell if it drops with the extra "poke" available.

I changed due to change in personal circumstances and wanted a newer car, lower monthly payments, better fuel economy and lower insurance. The Fabia fitted the bill and I am pretty happy thus far. I'm saving £60 per month on insurance (700 and odd quid) and I've halved my fuel bill. Servicing is 10Kmiles instead of 7.5K, so more savings there.
I did look at an MG ZT, but it was a 2.5 V6. Was a 2005 motor for £11495...........hell of a lot of car for the money, but I reckon if I change cars again in another year or two, the Fabia depreciation wil be less.

I know someone with a/n MG ZT-T turbo diesel and they love it. They've had a 2.5 V6 one and they say the diesel is waaaaaaay better.

Rabid

What it actually means is I'm going to bite you in the **** and give you a fatal and unpleasant disease.

However

320D V 330 petrol

130 diesel Passat V W8

525D V 540

ETC ETC ETC

You can go up a class and save money, even as an average mile driver.
Most higher mile drivers do it on behalf of their company, the rest are just 'nabs' (get with IT to understand)

logiclee

Most but not all.

And in some cases the diesel option is a better car.

Cheers
Lee

Rabid

Like in the case of the Fabia for example.

I agree with that but what doesn't make any sense to me is slumming it in say a Mondeo TDDI diesel when you could have bought a V6 for less money- exactly what a friend of mine did. He now drives round in a poverty spec diesel and paid £1500 more for the privelege. He does a grand total of 5K miles a year and IMO is typical of the short sighted idiots who say things like "but the diesel will save me money".

I don't know of any private motorists who do 20K personal miles a year either. Although I'm sure you'll tell us you do, Lee.

chiark

That's actually a good point, Rabid... For the money I paid for a 330d, I could have had a fully spec'd up 330 petrol with lots of toys and a bit of change, however it seems that large engined petrol cars depreciate a lot more than diesels without any real reason other than the myth that "diesels will run forever".

I did 18k last year tho, and working out what it saved me over the impreza is frightening!

I disagree that diesel is just for company drivers

Duck_Pond

Insurance on the ZT will be higher, and it won't be as economical as the vRS. I know because I have the vRS and my brother has had several ZT diesels over the years as co-cars.

Personally, if I had the room for a ZT, I'd probably have bought one. They're great cars - handle beautifully - leagues better than the vRS. The inside is also far, far better and more comfortable. And not surprisingly, there's tonnes more room in them. The boots are huge.

Performance wise, I think the vRS is faster, but there's not a great deal in it.

Of the ZT range, both the diesel and the V6 are fantastic cars, and surprisingly reliable too.

Diablo

Rabid, in all your examples the Petrol car is more expensive (significantly so in some cases).

Your are not comparing like with like. In all of your examples the petrol will also be more expensive to insure and most likely service.

High mileage 330s, W8s and 540s depriciate at much higher rates.

Contract hire prices for the petrol engined cars are often higher than for diesels for this very reason.

And as has been said above, in some cases the equivalent diesel is the better car. For example the 2.0d BMW unit is a better unit than the 2.0 petrol.

Its not just about the MPG when looking at the overall running costs, but I agree with your example of mondeo man.

And most certainly not just company car drivers who benefit.

logiclee

The TDDi Mondeo is a dog of a car, the TDCi is fine though.

What Car say "The 128bhp diesel is the pick up a good engine range."
Top Gear say "Don't be fooled by:- Diesel prejudice, the 128bhp TDCi's are worth the extra outlay"

I used to run a 2.5V6 Mondeo and used to average around 26mpg with the type of driving I do, the TDCi does about 46mpg. The V6 was insurance group 15, the TDCi is a 9.
I need a nearly new car in warranty so usually buy year old examples.
The V6 looses more money but the TDCi was cheaper new so 2005 high spec GhiaX/TitaniumX models sit at the supermarkets at between £13k-£13.5k whether V6 or TDCi. Of course in two years time when I sell the TDCi is going to be worth more than a 3 year old V6.
I don't do 20k a year but between 16k and 18k but even at 10k the TDCi would be a far cheaper option.
Finally I tow with the Mondeo, the 2.5V6 can only manage 162lbft of torque, the TDCi130 pushes out 260lbft. Even the newer 3.0lV6 can only manage 207lbft and the economy on that is even worse.

So as you can tell I'm not convinced about your Mondeo V6 theory.

Cheers
Lee

Rabid

Where's the logic, lee?

I was talking TDDI versus V6 not TDCI, a whole different ballgame and price point.

The fact is that often the diesel default option taken by the lazy or stupid isn't the best one.

logiclee

You had said earlier in the thread.

Then you bought up the Mondeo.

So I was just pointing out that actually a diesel Mondeo may be a better option for some private motorists.

Cheers
Lee

Rabid

W8's seem to cost less than similar specced TDI 130's- if you can find one

Likewise 540's and 530D's

As I'm sure you know mile for mile diesel running costs actually start to look pretty similar to petrol- servicing fo VAG group diesels can actually be more than their petrol equivalent.

I'm certainly not arguing that petrol is always better than diesel but taking a BMW 330i V 330D gives us a 1.5K difference in favour of the petrol car.

Taking into account the differential depreciation on the cars after a year and the extra fuel costs of the petrol you still save on the petrol. There are also many more cars with higher spec out there in petrol format. I'd also argue that the 330i is a lot better than even the higher output diesel unit, having driven both and IMO. Depends I suppose if you're the type of driver who likes to sit there doing sod all or if you actually enjoy driving.......

Rabid

I agree, taking quotes out of context of the argument isn't 'logical' though, Lee.
The mondeo example was a very specific one, based on a friend of mine who thinks that his TDDI is saving him money and is actually better than the V6 he could have bought for less. As we know it isn't.

logiclee

I think it would be very hard to use post 5 out of context as that's quite a sweeping statement you made.

Cheers
Lee

logiclee

Pricing for VAG 4 cylinder long life servicing is very similar, the PD diesel oil is around £25 more expensive.
The petrol has a 2 year 20k mile schedule the diesel is 2 years 30k miles.
If you do over 10k a year the diesel can actually work out cheaper to service.

Cheers
Lee

lozgti

Its a funny period in time when I'm prejudiced against Rover and bought a Skoda!20 years ago I was Rover mad and the cars were no where near the standard of the latest MG's

Diesel is becoming an odd rip off.High priced fuel and high priced cars and talk about having to do 57,000 miles or something before you reap any cost saving benefit.Which comes down to the driving experience.Do you like the way a diesel drives or a petrol? Another argument altogether though

MG looks nicer but depreciation is pretty important

dtriggs

Rabid - you compared 525d to 540 - now you say 530d v 540 - they are 2 very different propositions. Apart from that, a large engine petrol car depreciates at horrendous levels - what you see on paper is very different to the real level you end up reselling a car at - If you sell it at all. I have been caught out by this on a large petrol engine BMW before.

Rabid

Logically speaking, Lee, it's only as sweeping as some of your statements.

Rabid

When you are talking about cars at the 10K level then you are talking 10% at most in resale difference. Of course initial purchase cost is far more for the diesel rendering any 'loss' on the petrol car meaningless.


I still think 530i V 530D is no contest either, likewise 330i V 330D- looking at older cars the petrols are better in many ways.

alloy

wow talk about a rock and a hard place, Skoda or MG, i'd have to say the VRS from all accoutns it's a capable car within its design

mattbeef

go for the vRS you know it makes more sence, it will hold its value more and there is always more scope with it being VAG

logiclee

I'm sorry I must have missed the sweeping statement I made, perhaps you could quote me?

Cheers
Lee

Rabid

Perhaps I could but that would be **** and boring, why not just re-read some of your own comments and take it from there?
I find using the scroll button on my mouse or arrows on the keyboard allow me to browse through posts with almost no effort at all.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

The problem with ending up choosing between an MG or a Skoda is mainly due to the fact I have to run 2 cars, run a large house, provide for a family of 5 and not go massively into debt, we could buy pretty much any car we want, but we are trying to think long term and provide some kind of start in life for the kids, if perhaps I lived at home aged 35 I would get a Porsche but I can always choose to beleive in reincarnation cos that my only hope of one at the moment.

Our other car is a diesel Sharan, that only does about 7k a year but thats where Rabid's argument breaks down, have you ever driven the petrol versions ?, gutless and thirsty for the 2.0, the 2.3 is slightly faster and even thirstier but the V6 though a nice engine and quite fast, whats the point of a quick-ish people carrier that does 18 to the gallon, you cant throw it around, its like icing a dog turd !

So, strange as it may seem, some prefer diesels for normal driving, there does seem to be some comparison between performance petrols due to the fact most diesels are now quicker than the basic petrol engined models but that misses the point, a 100 bhp diesel Golf is a nicer to drive than the 100 bhp petrol, neither are really enjoyable so you may as well have the low down grunt to make it less painful.

A performance petrol will always be the preferable option but in the real world I will get a diesel next.