The issue here is that New v 2nd Hand then the 2nd hand car will always be cheaper – far, far cheaper if you do your homework and buy well.

Yet you have crazy people who will buy a brand new car (and suffer large lease charges or big depreciation) because their older car has needed a couple of things doing to it, or because the new car will do 10mpg more. Madness!

I’ve always bought 2nd hand performance cars, cars that when new cost 3-4 times what I’ve payed for them. In nearly 18 yrs of doing this, over a total of 6 cars owned I’ve lost a total of just £7,500 in depreciation – that’s a measley £420 per year. One car even gained £400 in value. Never broken down (yet), and not much more than routine maintenance over this time too so no unexpected costs here either.

But if you absolutely must have a new car then that Golf R seems a very good deal so far as new cars go.

I think you’re forgetting that the total cost of the loan to buy the £10k car would only be something like £10,700 over 3 years. At the end of that (outside fuel, servicing etc) then the total cost of the car would be the £700 in interest plus any depreciation the car incurred, say £4k.

So that’s a total cost over the 3 year period of the loan of £4,700 (£1,560 a year or £130 per month). That’s a lot less than the £300 per month lease deal for the new car.

Wouldn’t bother with a warranty on a second hand car, there’s too many opt out clauses for these companies to get out of paying up.

Get the Golf, life’s too short for regrets (and to drive a boring car).

Gliptone 100% – there’s simply nothing better out there than their Liquid Leather cleaner and restorer. Tried Autoglym in the past and nowhere near as good – doesn’t even come close. A Gliptone treatment will easily last a full year, is not sticky or shiny, protects from water and dirt, and enhances the smell of real leather. Think it’s online order only though – not sure if you can buy it in Halfords.

Agree with Funky Dink completely, 3 Series BMW or Mondeo much better cars (if you actually enjoy driving that is). If you’re not bothered about how the cars drive then either A4 or Passat will be fine, although a Honda Accord will be far more reliable than anything German and you see far less of them around.

Who ya gonna call!

Crowbusters

Lack of supply has played a small part in the SE but the boom in house prices over the last 15yrs has been caused by cheap and easy credit, nothing more, nothing less. So if interest rates stay the same and banks keep lending as they have been, expect prices to increase slightly or stay the same. If interest rates rise, and new affordability checks limit what someone can borrow to sensible amounts then expect prices to fall, possibly a lot.

a house that they actually live in can never really be an investment, so long as they still need to live it.

Still not sure what you mean by this. It MAY not be made liquid until you die, but it’s still something you own that has value.

The purpose of an investment is to earn you money. Does owning a house earn you money, or is it mostly just a big drain on your finances?

Laughed as a friend bought an old Jaguar as an investment few years ago thinking it would only go up in value. The price did go up for sure, he hardly drove it to preserve the value yet when he added up the costs of ownership for 8 years it cost him more to service, insure and store than the £10k increase in price he sold it for? Plus he had his original money tied up for 8 years. Great investment eh?

Probably low as we’ll be having a mini-crash once the election is over and they remove the help to buy stimulus. Plus all the PPI payment nonsense will end, which is another unsustainable boost, feeding the economy.

I’m doubtfull about the rates, the BOE have already strongly hinted that rates could be at 3% in just a couple of years. Tougher affordability checks just introduced too and an upping of housebuilding. If interest rates go up that will make saving more attractive, BTL much less attractive. Possibly BTL’s selling up and plenty of repocessions. Guessing prices could go down, possibly a lot.

Many of those will be people who took a mortgage out in Britian the 1960s, 70s and 80s and are now reaping huge financial rewards.

Yes and how were house prices in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s? Low, but with high interest rates initially which got progressively a lot lower as these people paid off their mortgages. Today’s hose prices are High, but with low interest rates. What will interest rates be doing as soon as the general election is over?

As I say I haven’t done the maths and I’m at work so I won’t now, but if you can calculate how I’m worse off buying, then I’d be interested.

Cheers, Molgrips – the video is worth a watch just to give you an alternative view and debunk the myth that a house is an ‘asset’. Still, it’s probable that you’ll be better off buying over renting particularly if you intend to stay put for the next 30 years.

I’m just trying to redress the balance slightly though to make people realise that a house that they actually live in can never really be an investment, so long as they still need to live it.

Sure people feel rich if they think that that their house has increased in value. You can then sell at a higher price, but since you still need somewhere to live then you also need to buy at a higher price, wiping out any gains.

The only alternative is to downsize or move to a cheaper area, releasing some equity. Still when you factor in what it’s cost you to build that equity in the first place (mortgage interest, repairs, renovations, fees, insurance etc, etc) then it’s a pretty poor ‘investment’ really.

A house can normally only be a true investment when you no longer need to live in the said property – i.e. BTL or similar.

The danger with people mortgaging themselves at these current crazy multiples of income is that they may never pay off their mortgages, so may be effectively renting from the bank well into retirement – all the downsides of ownership and none of the benefits of renting. Don’t even get me started on those who’ve taken out interest only loans with no hope of paying off the capital at the end of the mortgage period.

Both. And an essential item. So three things in one.

So you’ve completely ignored the evidence I’ve presented to the contrary then? Not trying to start an argument, just trying to understand your thinking and reasoning that’s all, and why the evidence I’ve presented could be wrong?

Molgrips, you haven’t answered my question yet? Do you still think the house you live in is an asset and an investment?

Simple fact is I couldnt afford to rent the house I live in but can afford to pay the mortgage.

….. until interest rates rise :wink:

That will always be the advantage of buying. No matter how flat the market or how cheap the house, you’ll always end up with a large asset at the end of it.

Are you sure your house is an asset?

The beauty of buying a house is that it’s both an essential outgoing AND an investment.

This is not possible if you rent, because you have to give away a fat chunk of your income to someone else.

Molgrips I’d like to challenge you here, buying a house that you personally need to live in can never be an investment – if it’s a BLT then sure, that can be, but not if you need to live in it.

Perhaps do the sums yourself? Lets ask the question, what did you pay for your house?

There’s the initial sale price of property when you buy. Then there’s stamp duty, solicitors fees, survey fees, removal men etc. Then there’s a huge wadge of mortgage interest payments and mortgage arrangement fees over the course of the mortgage. Then there’s renovations, repairs, appliances and insurance. Possibly ground rent or service charges if it’s a new development?

What will you sell your house for?

If you sold it today would you cover all of the above costs in the price you sell it for? What about in 10 years time if you sell it then? Don’t forget to subtract your 2-3% agent sale fees!

Sure, renting has it’s down sides, and if you plan to stay in the same location long term then buying makes sense. But despite daytime TV trying to make you think otherwise, buying a house to live in can never be seen as an investment. Owning a house is a pretty inefficient way of building wealth, and the buying over renting argument is often not the surefire route to financial security you’ve been lead to believe.

Germany is much richer than Britain, with ever rising wealth and immigration, and a cautious government. German house prices have actually fallen in real terms over half a century. There is a flourishing rental sector, regulated and with a degree of tenant security, while just 43% of Germans, mostly in middle age, own their homes. They invest their savings not in property but in productive industry, much to the benefit of the economy. Germany’s housing stock, says Monnery, “is a stable, functional and affordable asset”

Agree 100% – and they are nice houses too, not like our rabbit hutches with shoebox rooms and tiny windows. Just a shame we’re so fixated on property prices here in the UK, at the great expense of investment in new business and exporting things that we could actually be making if the investment was there.

Yet property prices are so high that they eat up a huge chunk of peoples disposable income. In the mean time a friend who owns a successful and growing business that exports has had to go through hell and high water to borrow to expand from the bank – yet low interest loans seem to be doled out to BTL investors to buy an overpriced house like bread at a duck pond. Something seriously wrong here!

molgrips – Member

Why is it a problem if more people rent though?

Because you never get any of the money back. If you buy, you do.

Buyers now will end up £250-500k richer in 30 years’ time. Renters will get nothing.

I’m not so sure it’s so clear cut. I’ve been renting for years but the fact I haven’t had to shell out a huge deposit on buying a house has meant that I’ve been able to invest in my own business. The returns from that have so far outstripped any possible financial gains from buying a house. Will buy when I’m convinced I’m going to stay put in an area long term but until then this US article kind of agrees with how I’m thinking:

Why you shouldn’t buy a home[/url]

Why is it a problem if more people rent though? People do this in the rest of Europe without problem and most only buy when they’re later in life and convinced they’re going to stay for a lengthy period of time. Keeps the labour market fluid. Would need much more protection for tenants if that’s going to be an option in the UK though.

Quite enjoying this actually although I’d have thought that by now they’d at least have:

Explored most of the island to see exactly what’s there.
Built raised beds to keep the sand flies at bay.
Started distilling freshwater from seawater (seems enough bottles/tins etc to be able to do this).
Worked out how to fish effectively – or built a small tidal fish trap.
Have found some ways to catch sea birds, e.g bait, traps, nets etc.
Made some crab or lobster traps or similar using the ‘poo fish’ as bait.

There are some lazy ass mofo’s on that island that’s for sure, but then if they can leave if it gets too much then I guess it’s not a real survival situation is it?

Whatever you think of Bear Grylls, he has my 8 year old nephew inspired enough to get outdoors and join the scouts – that can only be a good thing.

These ones both within 4 hours from Nottingham.

Harbourmaster[/url]

Lighthouse[/url]

Where on that sign does it say you agree to pay a charge if you overstay?

No one mentioned that the OP was exceeding the 30mph speed limit whilst looking back over his shoulder…?

It’s fine, it’s a cyclist – he wasn’t driving an Audi S3 or any other fast motor.

Sorry, forgot to say can’t do tubeless at the moment as have non-tubeless rims and a whole stack of spare inner tubes that need using. Does this change anything above?

All this talk of hugely increasing house prices at the moment, media and agents massively talking up the market, sellers market due to shortage of homes for sale, Help to Buy currently in place.

Yet Help to Buy will end soon, banks being told by BOE to factor in a 35% house price crash and a large hike in interest rates into their affordability calculations. Housebuilding revival leading to plenty of new stock soon. Election due minimum of 12 months time, but possibly sooner.

Buying a house makes financial sense in the long run but looking at the above are you sure you really, really want to buy right now?

Maybe I should give the Rubber Queens a go then? Running 26″ 2.3 Verticals at the moment. 2.2 or 2.4?

**** yeah, lets make the roads into race tracks it’ll be carnage but lots of tiny cocked men will have fun….

Haha, thanks for your concern Agagallis but I’ve been told by many ladies, on many occasions that my member is one of the bigger ones that they have experienced ;) Not quite sure how this relates to my driving style or choice of vehicle though? If you could enlighten me though then that would be great. Perhaps we could compare? Show and tell?

I am making a safety argument, you just appear not to be following it!

No Molgrips, everyone is governed by their own limitations whether high or low, yet you are suggesting that everyone should do as you do, to drive a slow and unexciting car, driven to your limitation, to your perceived level of risk, to your level of acceptable CO2 emissions, but why should they?

Why should this be so important as you suggest when exceeding the speed limit is a contributary factor in just 5.2% of accidents. When buying an 12-8 year old RS4 that’s already been manufactured is now far less poluting than buying a new Toyota Prius that still needs to be manufactured.

There are plenty of serious accidents and collisions on ski slopes, surprise surprise, the majority I suspect down to poor observation, poor judgement skills of other traffic or difficult slope conditions, but do you also believe that speed limits or forcing everyone to ski at roughly the same speed should apply here too? Should the speed of expert skiers on fast, capable carving skis be reduced to comply with the lowest common denominator?

I understand that it’s important that deaths and injuries be cut wherever possible, however wrapping people up in cotton wool and forcing them to conform to everyone else as you are suggesting (under a thinly veiled anti ‘any one doing any better than me’ campaign) means that people may not be dying, true, but they are also not able to live and enjoy life too.

Don’t forget that the only certainty in life is death – it will get us all at some point, so there’s no need to be scared of the inevitable and you may as well enjoy life whilst you’re here.

Molgrips, I love your dogged determination when it comes to these motoring discussions, however these are the official statistics, calculated by someone far more qualified than us.

Of course speed is a factor in every accident – since cars actually have to move for people to get places. However the stats clearly say that exceeding the speed limit is a contributing factor in just 5.2% of all accidents. This means that for the other 94.8% of accidents, these would have occurred whether or not the car was speeding – breaking the speed limit was not a factor in the accident.

If you really want to keep danger off the roads then according to the statistics you’d be far better switching your argument to ensure that everyone should take a compulsory eye test every year, rather than targeting speeders.

Now that this point has been proved once and for all, hopefully STW can now end the war on the speeder (and those who dare to drive faster, overtake, or own a better car than the ‘self righteous’ among us), and instead sharpen up the pitchforks in preparation to prod those drivers who pay little attention, have little awareness, and show poor levels of driver skill.

The first Google result disagrees with you 007.

Sorry but you haven’t read your own article that you’ve just posted have you? If you actually read the article it cleary says that:

“Sadly, driver error remains the most common cause of road accidents”

Here’s a link to the actual statistics for you:

Most Common Causes of Accidents

Exceeding the speed limit is a contributory factor in just 5.2% of all accidents.

Often when you’re dawdling slowly, you become relaxed, easily distracted, less aware and reaction time suffers accordingly.

Now who’s got no self control? Speak for yourself!

This isn’t a case of self control, it’s just basic human nature I’m afraid. It’s why the biggest cause of accidents isn’t speed, it’s poor driver attention, awareness and observation. Drivers are often less alert and less attentive at low speed – FACT!

A fast car is likely to encourage fast driving. Speed is highly addictive, for me certainly. And regardless of braking time, reaction time does not change.

Appreciate that some people have issues with self control, but it’s funny that the majority of truly fast cars I see on the road seem to be generally driven at a sensible and conservative speed. It’s often the case of lesser models, old wrecks, delivery vans etc pushing the boundaries of common sense, yet these are the type of vehicles with the least built in capability and the least margin for error.

Also reaction time does change. An observant driver driving quickly has a hightened sense of awareness and alertness meaning that reaction times are sharper. Often when you’re dawdling slowly, you become relaxed, easily distracted, less aware and reaction time suffers accordingly. Human nature I’m afraid.

You also have to take other people into account. They also have to react quicker to you, and they will not be expecting you hurtling around the next corner in your S3.

I always assume that there’s something coming at me faster than the posted limit when approaching any corner. If you’re an observant driver then there’s not much on the road that’s truly unexpected – and if you find that you’re always getting surprised by stuff on the road, then maybe it’s time for you to up your driver observation and perception skills by taking some extra driver training.

Fast cars, like fast bikes are often driven very poorly and worse than average.

What’s the average?

Educator, your focus on tread depth, a single stopping distance test etc is misleading at best. Please go and drive something like an S3 or RS4 for yourself for an extended period of time and in a variety of conditions and you will then see for yourself how much more capable these cars are than an average family hatchback.

You don’t have to be slow to be observant, but you will always be safer if you are slower. Absolutely ALWAYS

Always?

No Molgrips, sensible is to drive at a speed that’s appropriate for the conditions, not to blindly follow what the signs say.

So it would seem that people on here who’ve never had any additional driver road training really can’t see how it could possibly make anyone a safer, more capable road driver? Well stick your head in the sand if you want but I’m afraid you’re very, very wrong – by the same logic you may as we’ll say that the British Cycling team would have done just as well at the Olympics without any form of coaching.

Similarly with fast cars, the level in grip, performance, real world braking, tyres etc (despite what Un-Educator is trying to prove) between these and regular models is astoundingly different. So those saying otherwise have clearly never experienced it for themselves. Many of the safety features found on your regular shopping hatchback today were first introduced on higher performance cars, and have gradually filtered down the chain to benefit everyone.

Unfortunately these people think they’re safe drivers because of the widely-held belief that only people who exceed the speed limit/drive fast cars/ride motorbikes are dangerous

Steve, couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately because of the government taking the lazy option when it comes to road policing then speed has become the one thing they seem to focus on above all others. The constant anti speed propaganda has brainwashed many (including people on here) into believing that provided they don’t speed then that makes them a good driver. This couldn’t be further from the truth of course.

I’d far rather my kids get into a car with a driver who is observant, confident yet often breaks the posted speed limit than someone who dithers, knows little about cars or driving, has poor observation, yet who never speeds.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that someone driving faster than you, in a fast car may just be a better driver in a more capable vehicle?

To compare with biking, my mum’s not confident on a bike so for her riding fireroad would be a big adventure. She thinks it’s crazy and dangerous when I go out to the Peak District to tackle Jacobs Ladder on my XC hardtail. I’m confident on a bike doing XC but think that people doing gap jumps in Morzine on downhill rigs are crazy and are putting themselves in danger. But for these people gap jumps are the norm and they feel perfectly confident doing them.

It’s all about skill and perception – same with driving.

agent007, your post is just one long, I am a better driver than you cliche. You of course think you are a driving God and no doubt will consider me an idiot.

Completely disagree, I’m far from a perfect driver so that’s the reason I’ve been on extra driving courses to help improve my skills and awareness in areas I consider lacking. Does that make me a perfect driver now – no of course it doesn’t, I still make mistakes, but it does means I’m a far better and far safer driver now than I was before I took the extra training. There’s still a lot left to learn though.

As I overtake lots of fast cars much faster than my bike I often wonder why people have them, it must be frusyrating as ****.

Not at all, I get annoyed at some other drivers who are indecisive, inconsiderate or unaware of their surroundings whilst driving, but having a faster car means that many more opportunities to safely overtake present themselves than they otherwise would.

As for your bike comment then please feel free to ride how you like but also be aware that motorcyclists are just 1% of total road traffic, but account for 19% of all road user deaths.

Molgrips I disagree with you. The thread here is about fast cars, not idiots on the road who will drive carelessly whatever their vehicle.

Fast cars handle better, brake better and accelerate better. This increases the margin of safety massively. I can overtake quickly and with more of a safety margin, I’ve never had any issues on motorway slip roads as the power allows me to slot in safely in the most appropriate and safe fashion, the car holds the road much better in wet and difficult driving situations, brakes much better in the rare occasion that something genuinely unforeseen happens, and there’s been many situations where the best and safest way out if a potentially dangerous situation created by other road users is by using power to get out of that situation – an option not available in a lesser car.

So fast cars increase not decrease the margin of safety, or in other words can be driven faster than an average car in many given situations with the same or greater degree of safety (however this fact seems like a red rag to a bull on here).

Still, since you bought up the subject of drivers, I also think on the whole that the people who own really fast cars (as proper driving machines to be driven quickly, rather than as bling, bling ‘look at me’ show ponies) look after and maintain their cars well, increasing safety, spend money on good tyres, increasing safety, care about improving their driving skills and road craft, again increasing safety, and are knowledgeable and interested about a whole range of motoring issues, further increasing safety. It’s the ignorant drivers who dislike cars and driving, with no interest in improving their skill set you should be far more worried about I’d have thought.

I think an older RS4 would struggle to shake an S3 – no way in the world would it ‘leave it for dust’.

Looking at the 0-60’s they are very similar (although the S3 does have a snazzy launch controller rather than human operator to help achieve this). 0-60 (or 0-62) has never really reflected real world performance though and I expect the in gear times (30-70, 0-100) etc will tell a slightly different story, particularly as speeds increase. Don’t forget that the RS4’s, even the early B5 versions are genuine 180mph cars.

No, just the bills, based on a friends experience

You’d have to really go some at the garage to match the depreciation on a new S3 – around £15k in the first three years?