Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9


14213 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2570

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1209131 6-Jan-2015 12:20
Send private message

Then there's the case of "your wheels need to be aligned... look here these indecipherable numbers and graphs prove it!!!1!"




AWS Certified Solution Architect Professional, Sysop Administrator Associate, and Developer Associate
TOGAF certified enterprise architect
Professional photographer


1181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 157

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1209132 6-Jan-2015 12:21
Send private message

ilovemusic
and yes, new tyres on the front, especially with front wheel drive cars where the tyres must not only steer but also transmit power to the road.

authorities recommend rear fitment as a lowest common denominator response, understeer is easier for joe blow to respond to than oversteer.


I agree. In addition, where does most of your braking occur? Something like 80% on the front tyres. In the wet this could make a significant difference to your achievable stopping distance.

In a straight line, the front tyres will also pump the road dry, so the back, more worn tyres will have less water on the road to contend with.



2515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 541
Inactive user


  Reply # 1209159 6-Jan-2015 12:43
Send private message

timmmay: My Corolla car needs a couple of new tyres - I put four new Firestone Firehawk TZ100 on a few years back, at the recommendation of Consumer magazone. The front have worn out, back still looking good. They're 195 60 15 size.

I can't find my last receipt for tyres, it's before I started scanning receipts. I got some kind of a discount but can't remember what. Looking around online it seems the prices are secret - that suggests to me there are massive margins in the tyre business and they're trying to screw as much money out of you as possible. I don't like having to call up or email to get a price, in all my businesses prices are online.

What should I be paying for a set of 195 60 15 TZ100 tyres? List price is around $170 I think, but I've found a grabone deal for $89 each. The TZ700 is their replacement, but the TZ100 will be fine if they're cheaper.

The firestone's have been fine but interested to hear if anyone has any opinions on brands or models.

NOTE - PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING: I don't need "tyres are important" advice, I know that. I'm not looking for cheap tyres. I'm interested in what good quality tyres should cost given there's so much difference between advertised prices and what the tyres are occasionally sold for.


I have these tyres on my Falcon and they are as the car is gutless and the tyres aren't the weakest link in it's handling!

I think I paid around $100 - 120 each for 215/60/16 a couple of years ago, tyres like most things don't pay retail!

Check Hyper tyres for prices, that way you know where the price should be then ask Bridgestone for a price. The margins for the tyre stores aren't massive, the specials they offer are usually backed by the manufacturer via rebates or discounts.

Also I really liked the endure cheap tyres that firestone stores used to do, they gripped well for cheap tyres, wore very well and when the time came smoked very well in staging at the drags.

Infrastructure Geek
4057 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195

Trusted
Microsoft NZ
Subscriber

  Reply # 1209608 7-Jan-2015 00:35
Send private message

KiwiNZ:
timmmay: Ah so you've replaced 8 sets of tyres, the expensive way.


Our TCO is not higher


do you have some numbers showing why TCO is not higher? are you writing off against tax etc? would be good to see, especially if it makes new easier to justify :)




Technical Evangelist
Microsoft NZ
about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs


2282 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 370

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1209639 7-Jan-2015 08:06
Send private message

Regs:
KiwiNZ:
timmmay: Ah so you've replaced 8 sets of tyres, the expensive way.


Our TCO is not higher


do you have some numbers showing why TCO is not higher? are you writing off against tax etc? would be good to see, especially if it makes new easier to justify :)


I'm keen to know this too as I've run the numbers and am either doing it wrong, or missing something. I can believe overall it could work out cheaper buying new and selling every 3 years vs buying a 6 year old car, as between 6 and 10 years the values plunge.

13347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6276

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1209643 7-Jan-2015 08:22
Send private message

I am not prepared to post my financial details here, what I will say is compared to days where I purchased used vehicles buying new is a lot better especially now in such a competitive market.
Points.....

I have not paid for a single repair in years.
As stated in an earlier post the only tyres purchased in decades was due to punctures.
I drive modern fuel efficient vehicles.
I have a long standing relationship with our dealers and get very good trade in allowances.

I could go on, I will say my motoring is comfortable, safe,economic and worry free. I know what I am driving, I know its history and I am not buying someone else's nightmare.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


4135 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 754

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1209656 7-Jan-2015 08:39
Send private message

When I ran the numbers I found that the TCO is lowest on a good quality used car - i.e. an NZ new model with low mileage and full service history. However, purchasing new and replacing every five years results in a TCO that is only slighly higher than a good quality used car because the extra depreciation is largely offset by new car benefits such as warranty, roadside assistance, latest engine technology, free servicing, reduced WOF frequency, etc. On that basis I personally prefer to buy new as I'm willing to accept the slighly higher TCO for the enjoyment of having a brand new car.

I would have thought that buying new and replacing every three years would be much more expensive than replacing every five years because the depreciation is very high in the first year and quickly tails off thereafter, unless you are doing very high annual mileages.

In any case my analysis indicates that TCO on a poor quality used car is much higher than a new car, or a good quality used car.

4135 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 754

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1209682 7-Jan-2015 09:00
Send private message

Here are some numbers that I quickly crunched. I'm sure some people will disagree with my assumptions but under any reasonable assumptions you would have to conclude that there's not much in it.

My cost of capital is based on approximate after tax returns on a term deposit - I am assuming that the vehicle buyer does not take on any debt.


13347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6276

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1209709 7-Jan-2015 09:40
Send private message

I always replace my vehicles during the currency of the new car warranty. Brings a higher trade in allowance and lower running costs.

A huge plus is the value of peace of mind motoring.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


1512 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 785


  Reply # 1209731 7-Jan-2015 10:14
Send private message

alasta: Here are some numbers that I quickly crunched. I'm sure some people will disagree with my assumptions but under any reasonable assumptions you would have to conclude that there's not much in it.

My cost of capital is based on approximate after tax returns on a term deposit - I am assuming that the vehicle buyer does not take on any debt.


Interesting figures but I think you have your depreciation figures wrong, to the point of being the wrong way around.  You've assumed 68% depreciation over five years for used, but only 55% for new.  If you swap these around, or use say 60% for both, it puts a different slant on the numbers.  Just my opinion though and I have nothing to back it up except a vague recollection that a car loses more value as a % in the first three years than in any other similar period

13347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6276

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1209736 7-Jan-2015 10:23
Send private message

shk292:
alasta: Here are some numbers that I quickly crunched. I'm sure some people will disagree with my assumptions but under any reasonable assumptions you would have to conclude that there's not much in it.

My cost of capital is based on approximate after tax returns on a term deposit - I am assuming that the vehicle buyer does not take on any debt.


Interesting figures but I think you have your depreciation figures wrong, to the point of being the wrong way around.  You've assumed 68% depreciation over five years for used, but only 55% for new.  If you swap these around, or use say 60% for both, it puts a different slant on the numbers.  Just my opinion though and I have nothing to back it up except a vague recollection that a car loses more value as a % in the first three years than in any other similar period


I have never experienced actual depreciation on a new car any where near 60% or 40%  it been considerably lower.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


1512 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 785


  Reply # 1209755 7-Jan-2015 10:45
Send private message

KiwiNZ:
I have never experienced actual depreciation on a new car any where near 60% or 40%  it been considerably lower.

Over 5 years? I'd say 40% is very conservative - it's less than 8% per year compound depreciation and you're going to lose 15-20% in the first year regardless. 

13347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6276

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1209766 7-Jan-2015 10:51
Send private message

shk292:
KiwiNZ:
I have never experienced actual depreciation on a new car any where near 60% or 40%  it been considerably lower.

Over 5 years? I'd say 40% is very conservative - it's less than 8% per year compound depreciation and you're going to lose 15-20% in the first year regardless. 


That has not been my experience




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


1512 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 785


  Reply # 1209772 7-Jan-2015 10:59
Send private message

KiwiNZ:
shk292:
KiwiNZ:
I have never experienced actual depreciation on a new car any where near 60% or 40%  it been considerably lower.

Over 5 years? I'd say 40% is very conservative - it's less than 8% per year compound depreciation and you're going to lose 15-20% in the first year regardless. 


That has not been my experience

Well, I think that makes you an anomaly.  Consumer NZ reckon 50% (https://www.consumer.org.nz/topics/car-buying-guide), Dog & Lemon 70% (http://www.dogandlemon.com/articles/depreciation-new-zealand) AA NZ 50-60%.  I certainly wouldn't pay more than 50% of new price for a 5-year old car but I guess there are suckers born every day

13347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6276

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1209813 7-Jan-2015 11:35
Send private message

shk292:
KiwiNZ:
shk292:
KiwiNZ:
I have never experienced actual depreciation on a new car any where near 60% or 40%  it been considerably lower.

Over 5 years? I'd say 40% is very conservative - it's less than 8% per year compound depreciation and you're going to lose 15-20% in the first year regardless. 


That has not been my experience

Well, I think that makes you an anomaly.  Consumer NZ reckon 50% (https://www.consumer.org.nz/topics/car-buying-guide), Dog & Lemon 70% (http://www.dogandlemon.com/articles/depreciation-new-zealand) AA NZ 50-60%.  I certainly wouldn't pay more than 50% of new price for a 5-year old car but I guess there are suckers born every day


Dog and Lemon I ignore anything those negative Nellies say. 

An example, the last car I traded I had for 2.5 years. Purchased for $37,000. sold on trade in with 22,000 KMs for $31,000




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.