Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Junkie
If the reason for buying the Econetic was for fuel economy, then only having it for 36000 kms would have not got the money back from the original purchase price.
Eg:
Assume same price ($1.40 per litre) for diesel and unleaded.
(i.e. diesel is normally a bit more than 95 octane unleaded, but less than 98 octane unleaded)
2010 Eco Zetec Manual - $24,990
36000km at 4l per 100 would have cost $2016
2010 Zetec Manual - $20,990
36000km at 8l per 100 would have cost $4032
Note: IMO 8l per 100 is VERY conservative estimate for highway driving. It would be more around the 6 mark.
So, car cost $4k more.
But only saved, at most, $2k in petrol.
At those numbers, you would have had to do twice as many Km's to break even.
If the reason for buying was for less CO2 Emissions, then you have done a great job reducing your carbon emissions by 32%.
Hope I haven't trodden on anyones toes :~
|
Mate, you missed the point of my post, and perhaps my reason for the ECO over a Zetec when I was making that decision 10 months ago.
My commute justified an economical small car. The petrol struggled with the long hills on the way back to Ballarat (did a test run in a 10k demo LX). The torque of the Econetic justified the price to me - the economy was a bonus.
I know the LX did more than 8l for the 100km stretch back up hill from Melbourne to Ballarat, so 8 isn't THAT conservative IMO
Additionally - I know I got a higher price for my Econetic at trade in, and with lower servicing costs (2 in 10 months, 15k & 30k), this was at least as costly as a Zetec, if not cheaper (don't factor in my wheel saga - which I would have had with a Zetec anyway).
And yeah - you stood on my toes - questioning decision making, and $$$ decisions on a car that I know the running costs of, (fuel card statements), combined with my location where until 6 weeks ago Diesel was never more than $1.20 a litre, I will maintain my cost strategy was accurate.