Vehicle operating costs.

[Ext User(OzOne)]

Interesting reading....maybe you should take a taxi...
http://tinyurl.com/yurcp7

[Ext User(phil_herring@yahoo.com.au)]

Not surprising, really; it's been cheaper to take a taxi or hire a car
since the 1970s at least. Given the savage depreciation and high
maintenance costs on cars these days, I suspect things are much worse
now.

Not that many people care. They go out of their way to ignore
depreciation and don't even know what 'opportunity cost' is. As long
as they can drive 3 km to the servo and back for a litre of milk,
that's all that matters.


-- Phil

[Ext User(Athol)]

Marco <ignition.vess@gmail.com> wrote:

> According to that link, my car's costing me $289.52 a week.

According to that link, everybody buys new cars and takes the
depreciation up the arse then flogs the cars at 5yo.

Typical NRMA. Absolute crap intended to suit some agenda or other
of theirs. What a surprise that oz would be the one to post a link
to such garbage.

They should do the same study again starting with 3yo vehicles at the
going market price for each model. That would produce a far more
realistic set of results.

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(Daryl Walford)]

OzOne wrote:
> Interesting reading....maybe you should take a taxi...
> http://tinyurl.com/yurcp7

Seems like a lot of meaningless numbers to me.
IMO they make too many assumptions and the result is usually the
cheapest vehicle to buy is theoretically the cheapest to own and I doubt
thats the case in real life.
They put cars like the Holden Viva and the WRX Sti in the same class
which is ridiculous, they may be in the same size class but they have
nothing else in common.


Daryl

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:30:14 +1000, Daryl Walford
<dwalford@internode.on.net> scribbled thusly:

>OzOne wrote:
>> Interesting reading....maybe you should take a taxi...
>> http://tinyurl.com/yurcp7
>
>Seems like a lot of meaningless numbers to me.
>IMO they make too many assumptions and the result is usually the
>cheapest vehicle to buy is theoretically the cheapest to own and I doubt
>thats the case in real life.
>They put cars like the Holden Viva and the WRX Sti in the same class
>which is ridiculous, they may be in the same size class but they have
>nothing else in common.
>
>
>Daryl

But does it matter?
The results are gleaned from an average of all the service costa, tyre
mileages, insurances, depreciation and the cost of using the money to
buy the car among others.

It doesn't matter what class and in fact there are plenty of cross
overs.

[Ext User(OzOne.)]

On Aug 1, 12:19 pm, Marco <ignition.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 10:15 am, OzOne <> wrote:
>
> > Interesting reading....maybe you should take a taxi...http://tinyurl.com/yurcp7
>
> Only problem with that is that if you took a taxi everywhere, you'd
> never get to drive! Might work for people who aren't really into
> cars, though.
>
> According to that link, my car's costing me $289.52 a week.
>
> Marco

My car is costing me $227

It would cost me $320 a week in taxis to travel to work. Travel to
civic a couple of times a week to check-out the clubs go to a movie
and it would cost me an extra $200 a week.


With a car I have the freedom of starting work when I feel like it and
leaving when I feel like it.

Good to see that a V8 Berlina is cheaper to run than a V6 Calais. And
a 380 cheaper to run than a Prius.

[Ext User(Daryl Walford)]

OzOne wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:30:14 +1000, Daryl Walford
> <dwalford@internode.on.net> scribbled thusly:
>
>> OzOne wrote:
>>> Interesting reading....maybe you should take a taxi...
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yurcp7
>> Seems like a lot of meaningless numbers to me.
>> IMO they make too many assumptions and the result is usually the
>> cheapest vehicle to buy is theoretically the cheapest to own and I doubt
>> thats the case in real life.
>> They put cars like the Holden Viva and the WRX Sti in the same class
>> which is ridiculous, they may be in the same size class but they have
>> nothing else in common.
>>
>>
>> Daryl
>
> But does it matter?

If every car is listed in order of its running cost instead of splitting
into class's then it doesn't matter but if someone was to use the list
as a marketing tool which I suspect Holden will do to advertise the Viva
then it may give someone looking for a car in a particular size class
the wrong impression.
I doubt too many people would find the list all that useful because cost
is rarely what a buying decision is solely based on.



Daryl

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:35:02 +1000, Daryl Walford
<dwalford@internode.on.net> scribbled thusly:

>OzOne wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:30:14 +1000, Daryl Walford
>> <dwalford@internode.on.net> scribbled thusly:
>>
>>> OzOne wrote:
>>>> Interesting reading....maybe you should take a taxi...
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yurcp7
>>> Seems like a lot of meaningless numbers to me.
>>> IMO they make too many assumptions and the result is usually the
>>> cheapest vehicle to buy is theoretically the cheapest to own and I doubt
>>> thats the case in real life.
>>> They put cars like the Holden Viva and the WRX Sti in the same class
>>> which is ridiculous, they may be in the same size class but they have
>>> nothing else in common.
>>>
>>>
>>> Daryl
>>
>> But does it matter?
>
>If every car is listed in order of its running cost instead of splitting
>into class's then it doesn't matter but if someone was to use the list
>as a marketing tool which I suspect Holden will do to advertise the Viva
>then it may give someone looking for a car in a particular size class
>the wrong impression.
>I doubt too many people would find the list all that useful because cost
> is rarely what a buying decision is solely based on.
>
>
>
>Daryl

Obviously, the 380 was waaaaaay down the list despite the suggested
(by the know nothing knowalls) of horredous depreciation.

[Ext User(DAvid)]

<OzOne> wrote in message news:h180b3p1f9pkb9tnvaqt2m6v3pg0ao71n5@4ax.com...
> On 01 Aug 2007 05:45:05 GMT, Athol <me@privacy.net> scribbled thusly:
>
>>Marco <ignition.vess@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> According to that link, my car's costing me $289.52 a week.
>>
>>According to that link, everybody buys new cars and takes the
>>depreciation up the arse then flogs the cars at 5yo.
>>
>>Typical NRMA. Absolute crap intended to suit some agenda or other
>>of theirs. What a surprise that oz would be the one to post a link
>>to such garbage.
>>
>>They should do the same study again starting with 3yo vehicles at the
>>going market price for each model. That would produce a far more
>>realistic set of results.
>
> No, according to that link ANYONE WHO BUYS a new car spends that sort
> of dollars.
>
> And yes a totally seperate study starting with 3YO cars would be very
> useful indeed.
>
> Oh and why would you question my posting the link, You're one of the
> clowns who has me killfiled because you think everything I post is
> crap.

He's just one of (N)oddball's AL's..what would you expect.

DAVO

[Ext User(sheik_yerbhouti@yahoo.com)]

On Aug 1, 3:45 pm, Athol <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> According to that link, everybody buys new cars and takes the
> depreciation up the arse then flogs the cars at 5yo.

but people do buy new cars. the depreciation cost is still a cost even
if you don't sell it after years.

> They should do the same study again starting with 3yo vehicles at the
> going market price for each model. That would produce a far more
> realistic set of results.

for someone who bought a 3 year old car it would, but not for a new
car buyer.

[Ext User(the_dawggie)]

On Aug 1, 3:45 pm, Athol <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Marco <ignition.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > According to that link, my car's costing me $289.52 a week.
>
> According to that link, everybody buys new cars and takes the
> depreciation up the arse then flogs the cars at 5yo.
>
> Typical NRMA. Absolute crap intended to suit some agenda or other
> of theirs. What a surprise that oz would be the one to post a link
> to such garbage.
>
> They should do the same study again starting with 3yo vehicles at the
> going market price for each model. That would produce a far more
> realistic set of results.

You would have to be more insane than me to
buy a new car. Even 1 y/o models are a far better
buy.

I bought my 'lux at a bit over a year old 2nd hand back in
1992. it's the best vehicle I've ever owned. Mate, as
mentioned in a previous post got a 1988 Smurf. Both
vehicles look fairly newish, have high kays, however
just simply work.

HVAC fan switches ain't that good though.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

<sheik_yerbhouti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186187318.102628.184550@i13g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...

> but people do buy new cars. the depreciation cost is still a cost even
> if you don't sell it after years.

No they're not.

They only become a "cost" *if* you sell. Just like a capital gain only
becomes one *if* you get the cash in your hand.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Diesel Damo)]

On Aug 4, 10:28 am, sheik_yerbho...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Aug 1, 3:45 pm, Athol <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > According to that link, everybody buys new cars and takes the
> > depreciation up the arse then flogs the cars at 5yo.
>
> but people do buy new cars. the depreciation cost is still a cost even
> if you don't sell it after years.
>
> > They should do the same study again starting with 3yo vehicles at the
> > going market price for each model. That would produce a far more
> > realistic set of results.
>
> for someone who bought a 3 year old car it would, but not for a new
> car buyer.

How's the transmission swap going? Almost done now?

[Ext User(Tsunami)]

<phil_herring@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1185929353.895249.179280@i38g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
> Not surprising, really; it's been cheaper to take a taxi or hire a car
> since the 1970s at least. Given the savage depreciation and high
> maintenance costs on cars these days, I suspect things are much worse
> now.
>
> Not that many people care. They go out of their way to ignore
> depreciation and don't even know what 'opportunity cost' is. As long
> as they can drive 3 km to the servo and back for a litre of milk,
> that's all that matters.
>
>
> -- Phil
>

Oh OK. So how do I get to work at 0600 (no buses, taxi changeover time) and
take my 2 windsurf boards and six sails with me, and get another taxi to the
beach at 1500 knock off, and then get another taxi home in time for the
missus yelling at me to get the kids to bed at 1900?

Or start work at 1500, take taxi, then planning on 2300 knock off but get
3hrs overtime and have to give one of the boys a lift home cos he takes a
bus and none are running at 0200....

Works fine for 18 y/o receptionists who work in the CBD and live 10-20km
away from work, but this is australia and electric cars and public transport
ideals of big city euro's and yanks do not necessarily apply well.

[Ext User(dale-google@monsya.net)]

On Aug 9, 1:50 am, "Tsunami" <nonon...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> <phil_herr...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:1185929353.895249.179280@i38g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > Not surprising, really; it's been cheaper to take a taxi or hire a car
> > since the 1970s at least. Given the savage depreciation and high
> > maintenance costs on cars these days, I suspect things are much worse
> > now.
>
> > Not that many people care. They go out of their way to ignore
> > depreciation and don't even know what 'opportunity cost' is. As long
> > as they can drive 3 km to the servo and back for a litre of milk,
> > that's all that matters.
>
> > -- Phil
>
> Oh OK. So how do I get to work at 0600 (no buses, taxi changeover time) and
> take my 2 windsurf boards and six sails with me, and get another taxi to the
> beach at 1500 knock off, and then get another taxi home in time for the
> missus yelling at me to get the kids to bed at 1900?
>
> Or start work at 1500, take taxi, then planning on 2300 knock off but get
> 3hrs overtime and have to give one of the boys a lift home cos he takes a
> bus and none are running at 0200....
>
> Works fine for 18 y/o receptionists who work in the CBD and live 10-20km
> away from work, but this is australia and electric cars and public transport
> ideals of big city euro's and yanks do not necessarily apply well.

You only have 6 sails? They should fit on a Perth bus no problem :)

Maybe have a talk to Cosmic Charlie. Surely he can give you help with
your transport questions?

It must be a bastard leaving work to go sailing at 3pm...

[Ext User(Patrick)]

Tsunami wrote:
> <phil_herring@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1185929353.895249.179280@i38g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
>> Not surprising, really; it's been cheaper to take a taxi or hire a car
>> since the 1970s at least. Given the savage depreciation and high
>> maintenance costs on cars these days, I suspect things are much worse
>> now.
>>
>> Not that many people care. They go out of their way to ignore
>> depreciation and don't even know what 'opportunity cost' is. As long
>> as they can drive 3 km to the servo and back for a litre of milk,
>> that's all that matters.
>>
>>
>> -- Phil
>>
>
> Oh OK. So how do I get to work at 0600 (no buses, taxi changeover time) and
> take my 2 windsurf boards and six sails with me, and get another taxi to the
> beach at 1500 knock off, and then get another taxi home in time for the
> missus yelling at me to get the kids to bed at 1900?
>
> Or start work at 1500, take taxi, then planning on 2300 knock off but get
> 3hrs overtime and have to give one of the boys a lift home cos he takes a
> bus and none are running at 0200....
>
> Works fine for 18 y/o receptionists who work in the CBD and live 10-20km
> away from work, but this is australia and electric cars and public transport
> ideals of big city euro's and yanks do not necessarily apply well.
>
>
The whole idea of taxis or public transport being cheaper than a car
makes a bunch of unwarranted assumptions:

1. Your time isn't worth money. If you wait an hour for a bus or taxi,
that isn't counted as being worth money (I would want $40/hour myself.)
2. You are buying a brand new car and trading it in after 4 years. I
don't know anyone who actually does this. Anyone concerned with costs
buys 2nd hand and keeps for longer than 4 years.
3. You only ever travel within the city to places on major transport
hubs. Ever tried to get a taxi at 3 am in the outer suburbs? Or 50 km
west of Gingin?
4. You don't carry much with you. Hand luggage at most.

These assumptions might apply to urban sociologists who do transport
cost studies at university, they don't work for lots of people.