Change car or not.

(7 Posts)
WMittens Sun 29-Sep-13 18:11:06

I've been told not to put normal tyres on it as it would affect the ride and the safety - I've been told this not by bmw

Fair enough, but I'd go the exact opposite way - stiff tyres (and suspension) are great on a glass-smooth race track, but on Britain's potholed roads some extra cushioning in the tyres will prevent the car getting bounced around on bumps (I had a 370Z, 19" wheels with stiff low profile tyres and it was a jittery bugger on a rough road) and be more resistant to tramlining.

www.national.co.uk/information/runflat-tyres.aspx

FeetUpUntilChristmas Sun 29-Sep-13 18:07:26

OP I've had both, my previous car was a Volvo V50 (2.0d) nice enough car but nothing special, tyres were not cheap. Current car is a BMW 3 series again a (2.0d) with run flat tyres. Much nicer to drive (unless it's winter weather), much nicer finish, boot is not as useful as the Volvo but then I've swapped from an estate to a saloon.
Both are big enough for 4 adults to travel in comfort.
Would I go back to a Volvo, not without a fight.
Have you fully researched the tyre and servicing costs as I never found Volvo cheap. Also my Volvo was only slightly better on mpg than my BMW and I have switched from manual to auto.

ChablisLover Sun 29-Sep-13 17:48:20

I've been told not to put normal tyres on it as it would affect the ride and the safety - I've been told this not by bmw

Thanks for your help

I think it comes down to simple preferences as you say

Although ds wanted a new car yesterday but not today - it could be a long drawn out process

WMittens Sun 29-Sep-13 14:42:04

And it's dear to ... put tyres on (run flats)

So don't put run flats on - nasty things with no give in the sidewalls. Swap to normal tyres and spend less money and get more comfort.

52mpg to 65mpg is a difference of about 2.41p/mile, so £289.20 if you do 12K miles per year.

It's still going to be more expensive to change whichever way you look at it, but if you're not enjoying the BMW any more there's not much else to say.

ChablisLover Sun 29-Sep-13 13:33:19

Thanks

It's a 2009 facelift model - a 318d

Car tax is £105 a year so not too bad.

It does about 52 mpg and is group 23 insurance

The Volvo had no road tax looks to be getting about 60-65 mpg and is group 17 insurance

The bmw has been in an accident and I think I fell slightly out of love with it.

It still is a nice car but it's now 4 years old. And it's dear to service and put tyres on (run flats)

So the prestige of owning a bmw is lovely but expensive

The v40 in my mind equates to a 1 series so I don't see it and a 3 series in the same class.

Think I have a lot of thinking to do

WMittens Sun 29-Sep-13 11:01:52

What body shape and engine does your 3 series have?

If your main motivation is to save money, do some very in-depth calculations to see if it's worthwhile - changing to a newer car very rarely saves money unless you are significantly downgrading. I would say a 3 series to a V40 is not enough of a change, as they are in the same car category even if not necessarily aimed at the same market sectors. (Volvo are not even miles away from BMW in terms of brand position either, compared something like e.g. Vauxhall or Hyundai. I think you'll find you could spec one up very nicely.)

Depreciation is often the biggest cost in motoring and you'll be getting buckets of that if you go for a new car; look at how much you will lose in three years on the V40 compared to another 3 years in the BM, and how miles of petrol/diesel that will represent. Be careful with the claimed MPG, as it's all calculated according to the non-real-world New European Driving Cycle rules. Look at the honestjohn real MPG figures and use them as a basis; I'm not saying they'll be guaranteed the same as what you could expect, but more likely to represent real-world driving.

Again with road tax, compare against depreciation - even if the BMW was in the top tax band (£470/£490 by now?) the Volvo would cost you massive amounts more in depreciation in a year (£2000/year as a guesstimate). That £2K is on the conservative side, depending on spec you could lose £4K in the first year, and it could well be £8K-9K over three years.

In terms of size, I don't see a major difference: BMW is only about 16-20cm longer, 1cm wider and is slighty less tall than the V40. I don't see it's going to make a major difference when negotiating narrow roads and car parks, YMMV.

It sounds to me like you don't want to change, I certainly don't think you would save any money, and the size/space sounds like a minor consideration between the two. Based on those choices, I'd stick.

ChablisLover Sun 29-Sep-13 07:51:54

Help

Part of me wants to change but part doesn't

I currently have a late 09 bmw 3 series and am looking at the Volvo v40 so I'm going down a class and losing toys like built in sat nav.
Although am building configurations online to see what I can live without.

I think I don't need such a big car anymore -ds is getting older and there's no need to cart so much crap. The v40 has no road tax due to emissions and allegedly gets 74mpg and that would be good for the miles I do.

Dh thinks I should change but says its my choice but I don't know what to do.

Any advice?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now