Sell what I have for more fuel efficient motor?

makeorbrake

As per the thread title, I have a 08 1.4 TDCi Fiesta Van which is clean (used privately rather than commercially...no dents or scrapes, serviced every 7-10K (although with an independent guy - not main dealer)) and with 192,000KM on the clock. Running well and I've been (and I am) happy with it.

I do 48,000 KM /year in mileage. I'm keen to minimise outlay on fuel (like everyone I guess).

On paper, moving to a new-ish Fiesta 1.6 Duratorq ECOnetic would mean a considerable saving on my annual fuel bill.

A few questions....


1. If I sell privately, what could I expect to get for the existing 08 Fiesta van?

2. The plan was to pick up the replacement in the UK. Anyone got any suggestions as to the best place to pick up a Fiesta van in the UK?

3. How are these new Ford engines performing?

4. Does it stack up to go to all this trouble? i.e. on paper there should be so much more mileage with the newer model - but in reality, will it work out this way? I guess as time goes on, I have to look towards replacing it - but over and above that, does what I'm proposing make sense?

Senecio

Changing cars to save money very rarely makes sense. Everyone tends to forget about depreciation.

makeorbrake

Senecio wrote: »

Changing cars to save money very rarely makes sense. Everyone tends to forget about depreciation.

I take your point completely. However, is it not a case (given the rate of mileage I'm clocking up) that I'm going to need to change soon enough anyways if I am to continue to drive something reliable?

I'm not thinking in terms of replacing it with something with the same mileage on the clock. I'd be thinking in terms of replacing it with the newer model van having similar mileage that was on my existing van when I bought it i.e. <30,000 KM.


The 1.6 Duratorq ECOnetic comes in with the following mpg;
Urban: 74.3 Extra Urban: 91.1 Combined: 85.6

My existing 2008 1.4 TDCi comes in with the following mpg;
Urban: 48.70 Extra Urban: 74.30 Combined: 62.80

80% of my driving is extra urban.

colm_mcm

Your existing van does savage mpg on paper too.

makeorbrake

colm_mcm wrote: »

Your existing van does savage mpg on paper too.

Without a doubt - it does. I couldn't even think about driving anything that didn't achieve this type of mileage due to what I clock up every year. I guess I'm trying to go one better whilst renewing my motor at the same time?

Sobanek

We got a Mondeo 1.6 Econetic rental and on a 50km journey to work I managed 4.9l/100km - mostly motorway. I'll go home in the morning, fill it up with diesel and tell you the real fuel economy.

September1

Our only real disappointment was that despite driving in a reasonably economical style during our test week, the fuel economy display on the dash reached only 57.4mpg at its peak – a far cry from the 85.6mpg official combined figure.

Source: http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/vans/reviews/ford/fiesta-van/car-derived-van-2013/16-tdci-95-econetic-trend/47857/

makeorbrake

Sobanek wrote: »

We got a Mondeo 1.6 Econetic rental and on a 50km journey to work I managed 4.9l/100km - mostly motorway.

Ok, so 57.65mpg.

I was aware these 'official' mpg rates are rubbish. However, surely some independent source has tested all vehicles with real credible mpg rates? You've proven that the official mpg for that engine is bs - but I need to compare that with real world figures for the existing 1.4 TDCi engine (because I'm sure that the real world figures for this are less also).

Sobanek wrote: »

I'll go home in the morning, fill it up with diesel and tell you the real fuel economy.

Yes, please do.

Idbatterim

Changing cars to save money very rarely makes sense. Everyone tends to forget about depreciation.

Depreciation and loan interest if applicable...

makeorbrake

Idbatterim wrote: »

Depreciation and loan interest if applicable...

Ok, loan interest isn't applicable here. I've never had a car loan and never intend to have one!

Depreciation....I'm unsure how to tackle that one. Someone in the trade told me a year ago that the time was right for me to move my current van on (before I clocked up too much more mileage). That's with regard to my current wheels.

With regard to buying something fresher, how does depreciation work on motors these days? i.e. From what I understand, a vehicle loses 20% once driven off the forecourt. How does that depreciation rate work for subsequent years? i.e. is there a 'biting point' that brings with it the most value i.e. 2/3/4 year old, etc?

biko

You need to sit down and calculate costs for tax, fuel, insurance over 4 years. Add cost for new car and subtract cash for old car.
Only then will you get any real numbers to think about.

If you just want an excuse to buy a new car then go for it.

makeorbrake

biko wrote: »

You need to sit down and calculate costs for tax

Originally, I started off by paying private tax which is now €358/year. Did this on the basis that there was a loophole - i.e. commercial vehicle private tax - neither nct or doe would test vehicle. That loophole now closed - so no advantage in paying private tax. Because I started to pay it, I assume, I have to continue to pay it on this vehicle at least. Would it be possible with reg'ing a new vehicle to go with commercial tax rate? (or has this tightened up - and therefore, I will be required to produce tax or vat number?).

biko wrote: »

You need to sit down and calculate costs for fuel

On paper, I've proven it. However, see above. I'm interested by way of this thread of working with real world mpg figures to see if there really is the difference in mpg that at first sight there seems to be.

biko wrote: »

You need to sit down and calculate costs for insurance

I would imagine the difference will be negligible ...of course, it will be higher based on the valuation of the new vehicle but all other factors will be equal.

biko wrote: »

Add cost for new car and subtract cash for old car.
Only then will you get any real numbers to think about.

Again, I'm trying to ascertain value of existing vehicle by way of this thread.

biko wrote: »

If you just want an excuse to buy a new car then go for it.

Is that what's coming across?...because it couldn't be further from the truth. I'm after value here - the bling factor of going out and buying something doesn't do a whole lot for me in and of itself. If folks here identify that what I'm proposing makes econonic sense, then I'll go for it. If the contrary, I'll happily continue on motoring and run this van into the ground.

Bpmull

If it's solely about the financial cheapest option keep the van and drive it till it stops/ is not economical to repair then get a replacement. A 1.6tdci will save you fcuk all over a 1.4tdci. What's the van doing 50mpg plus I assume. Tbh your fiesta isn't going to be worth that much as most people will be obsessed with low miles and the 192k km will out them even though it's not that high. Theres no reason why the fiesta wouldn't do 400 k km without costing to much in repairs obviously certain things will go. I think you would break even at most considering the cost of buying the replacement at best it would probably cost you money more than likely.

s14driftking

the thoughts of doing 48000kms in a fiesta would make me feel suicidaul small cramped and not much go from the weedy engine, tbh its worth feck all and the cost savings of moving to the 1.6 will take yrs to reclaim due to depreication costs of buying trip to England etc if was me id probably drive it till it not worth fixing then look into buying something a bit more comfortable for that type mileage golf etc

sawdoubters

you will not save changing cars

if you do go diesel

commited

makeorbrake wrote: »

However, is it not a case (given the rate of mileage I'm clocking up) that I'm going to need to change soon enough anyways if I am to continue to drive something reliable?

No. We're not in the 70s anymore and engines don't "wear out" as such these days, a lot of the ancillaries go with age not mileage. You're usage profile is pretty much ideal for prolonging a cars life and it's only 6 years old - probably not much different compared to a similar car with 50k on the clock that's been used in the city. If you're happy doing that sort of mileage in a Fiesta then there is no financial reason to change. However, it might be worth upgrading to something Focus/Mondeo sized for a small loss in economy so you can be more comfortable.

makeorbrake

Bpmull wrote: »

If it's solely about the financial cheapest option keep the van and drive it till it stops/ is not economical to repair then get a replacement. A 1.6tdci will save you fcuk all over a 1.4tdci.

commited wrote: »

We're not in the 70s anymore and engines don't "wear out" as such these days, a lot of the ancillaries go with age not mileage. You're usage profile is pretty much ideal for prolonging a cars life and it's only 6 years old - probably not much different compared to a similar car with 50k on the clock that's been used in the city.

That's settled then. I'll drive her into the ground! Will be interesting to see what I can clock up on her. Will post back here the day she dies with the results :-)

s14driftking wrote: »

the thoughts of doing 48000kms in a fiesta would make me feel suicidaul small cramped and not much go from the weedy engine....probably drive it till it not worth fixing then look into buying something a bit more comfortable for that type mileage golf etc

commited wrote: »

It might be worth upgrading to something Focus/Mondeo sized for a small loss in economy so you can be more comfortable.

I'm far from the smallest fella on the road - and never noticed much in the way of discomfort driving the fiesty. I guess the exception would be hitting the odd pothole although I've slightly oversized tyres which smooths it out a bit.

The little engine packs all the punch I need - its light as a feather and I'm not hauling any kind of anything around in it - ever.

Having said that, I guess by the time that I come round to replacing, its quite possible that my needs will have changed i.e. not doing that sort of mileage any more and therefore fuel efficiency not as big a factor. At that stage, will probably be more inclined to spend a bit more on something more substantial.

Greenmachine

What is the car costing in servicing in a year by the sound of it you are servicing it every two months or so. If you cover 48,000 km p/a and service it every 7000-10,000 kilometres.

Bigus

Check out ecomodder .com some tips on there on how to improve mpg for long distance commutes.

Some mad ideas there , but some simple ones too, like passenger mirror delete, added smooth under tray , grille block which is probably very suitable for irish climate and smooth hub caps.

Some lads getting big % improvement in mpgs

Simplest thing to do with your fiesta to gain maybe up to 10 % improvement is to get good branded Eco energy tyres next time you change them and keep them well inflated.
I'd also be trying a sup of dip ethane at each fill up to see if its improves mpg , it works out very cheap at a tenner a bottle and maybe 10 plus doses per bottle , dipetane are claiming 10% mpg improvement.
Report back if you try these tips pls

makeorbrake

Greenmachine wrote: »

What is the car costing in servicing in a year by the sound of it you are servicing it every two months or so. If you cover 48,000 km p/a and service it every 7000-10,000 kilometres.

Yes, It would be once every 2 months or so. In truth, I may have started out doing servicing at 7k - but the last few times, Ive always waited until the full 10k done. Servicing probably costing me an average of €120 (there might be the odd extra bits and pieces thrown in with that from time to time).

Bigus wrote:

Check out ecomodder .com some tips on there on how to improve mpg for long distance commutes.

Thanks for that - looks like an interesting site at first glance. Will check it out a bit further.

Bigus wrote:

Simplest thing to do with your fiesta to gain maybe up to 10 % improvement is to get good branded Eco energy tyres next time you change them and keep them well inflated.

I had never really thought about tyres in terms of fuel efficiency. Usually just get mid range tyres such as Kumho's or Hankook. Whats on there are fairly fresh but maybe can give Eco energy tyres a twist next time round and see if it makes any difference.

Sobanek

makeorbrake - forgot to post in the morning.

Total journey - 116.4 km (75% Motorway)
Computer says consumption was 5.1l/100km.
I topped it up with 6.21 litres of diesel which means I used 5.3l/100km.

makeorbrake

Sobanek wrote: »

makeorbrake - forgot to post in the morning.

Total journey - 116.4 km (75% Motorway)
Computer says consumption was 5.1l/100km.
I topped it up with 6.21 litres of diesel which means I used 5.3l/100km.

Hi Sobanek. Thanks for coming back and posting. Then that's 55.39mpg. So much for a combined average of 85mpg! These mpg ratings are ridiculously wrong! How can the manufacturers be let away with this crap!? Its far too important. Surely someone independently is carrying out unbiased REAL WORLD testing!??

Based on what everyone else has contributed, I think the most economical thing to do is to run this van into the ground. It will be fun to see just how many KM I can clock up - as my driving routine for the most part is ideal for a 1.4 TDCi diesel - i.e. It gets a good long run out twice daily - 5 times a week.

air

The disparity between claimed and real world fuel economy seems to have widened considerably over the past 5 - 8 years. Seemingly the manufacturers are tuning engine management maps and other aspects of the cars specifically to perform well in the standard driving tests.

In reality there probably isn't a lot more to gain in terms of improving engine efficiency so any future gains are going to be made by making cars frontal area smaller, moving to more aggressively aerodynamic body shapes and / or making cars lighter.

The disappointing part is that they could have been making 100mpg capable cars for the last 10 years or more if they were prepared to go with radical aerodynamics. Unfortunately the car buying public is seriously conservative so instead we get a really slow evolution that allows people's tastes time to adapt.

makeorbrake

air wrote: »

The disparity between claimed and real world fuel economy seems to have widened considerably over the past 5 - 8 years. Seemingly the manufacturers are tuning engine management maps and other aspects of the cars specifically to perform well in the standard driving tests.

It's too important a factor now for them to get away with that crap. The car buying public need real world mpg ratings.

The disappointing part is that they could have been making 100mpg capable cars for the last 10 years or more if they were prepared to go with radical aerodynamics. Unfortunately the car buying public is seriously conservative so instead we get a really slow evolution that allows people's tastes time to adapt.

For real? Can't understand that. Would have thought there would be 100's of 1000's that would put fuel economy before all other factors?