I could afford anew car but no way would I buy a new one. Always second hand much better value for money.

These days, a 10 year old car isn’t the nightmare a 10 year old car would have been in the 1980’s.

On one hand we are being told that cars are bad, wrong and we should be using public transport, walk the kids to school etc.. On the other hand, we are being encouraged to buy new cars. These are very mixed messages.

I can sort of see why some people want a brand new car. I know that I never could, however. I just couldn't justify the depreciation.
Besides, the sorts of cars I like aren't new anyway...

Agreed. My next car will either be a proper “alternative” fuel car (whatever that may be - I am waiting to see what the dominate player will be). It certainly won’t be a hybrid fudge.

Or my next car will be old enough to be a listed building.

Everybody "would like" a new car. It's just that most of us share the depreciation thing. Imagine something that nobody else has touched, washed, or messed up in any way. Plus, way nicer from a mechanical point of view. You can be aware of everything that goes wrong, how it was fixed etc.

I'd love one, and if the scheme offered "decent" money off, like £5k+, I'd be tempted. But like I said earlier, I'm not eligible, so

I'd quite like a new 8c Alfa. But I'd just as happily get into a second hand one.
It's just not that important to me. I'd rather have an engine that I could stand half a chance of mending myself, rather than something that needs a laptop to tell me what's wrong. My present car is about as modern as I'd want to get in fact. Having seen the fault in our A-Class concerning the immobiliser (which involved replacing the starter motor, which involves dropping the engine, which equals big costs) I can live without that much technology in my car.
And most modern cars of the last 10 years are well enough built that you could buy second hand, have exactly the same sort of life expectancy of a new one. You can tear up a few £50 notes every week to mimic the depreciation if you really want to.

Depreciation's [LIFTED] though Al. People factor it in as a "cost". [LIFTED]. Once you've bought a car, that money is spent. You shouldn't count on getting any of it back, just run the car til it doesn't work any more. These days that should be 10yrs easily.

You're right about the technology factor of course. The same is true with everything these days. The rise of the machines is coming

I disagree.

People who buy new cars often get finance for it over a few years and shift it for another new one when it's convenient.
Every car the family's looked at buying (second hand), depreciation has been a factor that's considered.
The time will come when you need to sell it, so how much of that money you've invested in the car would you like to see back?
Or are you seriously suggesting that people buy a car new and hold onto it through thick and thin for the next 60 years?

I don't consider depreciation when buying a car, but I also wouldn't buy brand new - unless I had money to burn.

I bought my current Mondeo 3 months old. I couldn't have bought it new, because I couldn't have afforded it. Buying an ex-demonstrator that was 3 months old, I got a top of the range model with every extra (apart from dual climate control, I can only set one temperature for the whole car) and no the front seats don't have fans to blow air through them) for less than the price of the base model! Being 3 months old, it saved me over €14,000.

That is a heck of a lot to lose in 3 months and 4,000KM.

But that is the only reason I bought it. I hadn't planned on buying another Ford, when I got it, but the deal was too good to refuse.

When I buy a car, the idea is always to buy a car that will see me through many years, until it won't run any more. If I get a windfall, I might replace it, otherwise it will keep running until it is uneconomical to repair. Then it will be replaced with a newer car, which will be the best, in terms of quality and reliability, that I can afford with the money that is in my pocket.


The first 2 cars I bought, I bought on credit - because I needed them for my job, at a time when I had just started work and didn't have any capital. Since then, I've only bought cars I could pay cash for. I bought one brand new car, an '88 Escort, and I wouldn't buy another, unless I win the lottery. I'd always buy second hand, even if I could afford new, I'd save the big bucks and buy a less than 1 year old model.

But, the depreciation of a specific brand or model is irrelevant. The depreciation of the first couple of months is important and I will avoid that, but the rest of the depreciation isn't a factor in buying a car.

I was quite looking forward to the announcement of the "scrappage scheme" as my Fiesta is over 10 years old and starting to show it's age. I had mentally made the decision to change.

Then the announcement came and was applicable only to new cars, not new and nearly new along the German lines.

Disappointing because I won't buy a brand new car because of the depreciation hit. Looks like the old Fiesta stays.

Cars aren't an investment Al. They can be many things, but they are not an investment. Therefore, a return should neither be expected or factored in. If you lease, this is taken care of. If you get finance you should only borrow over the period you intend to keep the car. If you wanna keep changing cars for a newer model every year, then you are CHOOSING to be a victim of market prices. If you buy as Dave does, then keep - you are immune.

I'm just saying depreciation needn't be an issue, but people make it one. If you buy the right car in the first place, it should last you and do everything you want. If your circumstances change and you need something else, so be it, but that's up to you.

So yeah, I am suggesting that people buy cars and hang on to them

But that's not the case. We've sold a car for more than we bought it for - that was an investment and it was bought with both that and the pleasure of owning it in mind. Similarly a friend bought a new Jaguar S-Type - a significant investment of cash into a single item - and is now stuck with a loss of tens of thousands that he now can't use against buying his next car. Whenever you're parting company with large sums of money (cars, houses, boats) then it's prudent to be sure that when parting with it, you'll get some of that money back. It doesn't matter how rich you are, it's just common sense.



But, clearly people don't. Otherwise we'd have no second hand market.

and as with everything, there are exceptions. Classics and the like. Nobody "looses" tens of thousands when buying a car. They may "spend" tens of thousands, then moan when they can't get some of it back, but that's not "losing" it. To lose it, they would've had to gamble, or invest it.

You're not wrong, I just think it's ridiculous. Perhaps if people didn't stretch themselves financially on the basis of what things "might" be worth in the future, there would be less economic issues right now.

I agree with Okenobi.

Whilst it is possible that a car can make money (E.g. classics), the purchasing decision shouldn't be based around getting a more money for it, when you sell it, than you paid for it. The idiots who artificially bumped up the values of classic cars in the 80s and 90s can attest to that, when they got their fingers burnt, when the prices crashed.


An investment? A significant expenditure, yes. An investment? No

My parents bought my Mum's Jeep brand new in 1998, it's just had the engine replaced at 193k miles. Not looking to get rid of it anytime soon.