DRAFT cost of ownership calculator for MG3

Purpose of this table: not to give an exhaustive list of alternatives to MG3 which will be realistic to everyone (especially those for whom around £11k is their top budget whose alternatives will be mostly used cars) but to give the lie to the assertion that "Premium brands have low depreciation".

Everyone should make their own assumptions and calculations, these DRAFT calculations may be wrong.

Depreciation makes all the difference. I have taken a car with very good percentage residuals, the Audi A1, and although it is set to retain say 52% (What Car?) after 3 years as opposed to the say 35% of the 3 Style, because the Audi's list is nearly twice as high its depreciation is much higher.

I also put the 1.2 Polo in to compare it, along with the smallest Volvo (which is nevertheless a larger car) and the Sandero whose low price makes it likely to cost less per year than the MG (albeit for a lower-powered car from a brand which sets out to be "cheap").

These figures are all assumptions which will vary from person to person. The money which the MG saves or costs extra every year presumes the money is borrowed and makes no allowance for purchase discounts (low to non-existent on the Audi and the MG) or the money saved on the MG's insurance. If you think anything is wrong, please post it here.


Car Cost Comparison Calculator (DRAFT!)

	Audi A1	VW Polo	Volvo V40	Dacia Sandero	MG3
	1.4TFSI	1.2TSI	T2 ES	L. 0.9TCe	Style
cc	1,390	1,197	1,596	898	1,498
PS	122	105	120	90	106
0-60 (s)	8.9	9.7	9.4	11.1	10.4
mpg (urban)	41.5	41.5	41.5	44.1	37.7
CO2 (g/km)	124	124	124	116	136
VED (yr 2 on) £	105	105	105	30	125
Insurance Group	15	14	19	7	4
Climate control £	330	415	Y	N	Y
Front electric windows	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Rear electric windows	N	N	Y	Y	Y
Cruise control	225	Y	225	Y	Y
Alloys	Y	Y	Y	425	Y
Metallic Paint	340	535	550	495	350
Parking Sensors (rear)	345	Y	325	250	Y
Option cost total £	1,240	950	1,100	1,170	350
New List Price £	17,910	16,210	18,995	8,795	9,999
With Options	19,150	17,160	20,095	9,965	10,349
Diff to MG	8,801	6,811	9,746	(384)
After 3 years £ DRAFT	10,000	6,800	9,000	4,200	3,700
Diff to MG DRAFT	6,300	3,100	5,300	500
Extra Depreciation over MG DRAFT	2,501	3,711	4,446	(1,034)
Retained Value as % of list DRAFT	52%	40%	45%	42%	36%
Depreciation Cost DRAFT	9,150	10,360	11,095	5,765	6,649
Depreciation Per Year DRAFT	3,050	3,453	3,698	1,922	2,216
Extra Annual Depreciation DRAFT	834	1,237	1,482	(345)
Average to Finance DRAFT	14,575	11,980	14,548	7,083	7,025
At 7% pa DRAFT	1,020	839	1,018	496	492
Cost of petrol (10,000 miles pa)
Gallons DRAFT	241	241	241	227	265
Litres DRAFT	530	530	530	498	583
@£1.40/l = £pa DRAFT	741	741	741	698	816
VED yrs 2 and 3 DRAFT	105	105	105	30	125
“Depreciation Cost” pa DRAFT	3,050	3,453	3,698	1,922	2,216
“Finance Cost” DRAFT	1,020	839	1,018	496	492
Insurance
Servicing
Total “cost” per year DRAFT	4,917	5,138	5,563	3,145	3,649
Extra cost over MG DRAFT	1,267	1,489	1,914	(559)

Source for depreciation figures: What Car? (residuals increased for options on Audi and VW); assumption for MG at much lower percentage.

15/03/2014: increased purchase price of V40 T2 to £18,995; reduced cost for metallic paint on MG3 to £350. Please treat all these amounts as indicative!

All very good, but wouldn't real world people be unlikely to compare the £19,000 Audi with a £10,000 MG3? It is nearly twice as much the price so people would tend not to look at both of those cars. The Polo is nearly 70% more expensive too.

It would have been like me comparing my Volkswagen which was £25,000 when it was new with a £50,000 BMW M3 or £40,000 Audi S4!

Yes, surely better to compare the Dacia Sandero, Skoda Fabia, etc?

Seat Ibiza is available for around the same price too, I have seen TV adverts for a model with Sat Nav and alloys that is £10,000.

At the back of my mind was the question "what is a low-depreciation car?" The Audi A1 is a higher-depreciation car than the MG3.

I am a real world person and the two obvious alternatives to MG3 for me are a) Volkswagen Polo and b) Volvo V40, both of which are higher-depreciation (largely since a) lots and b) massively more expensive).

I have also added the Sandero which is lower-depreciation.

Jobbybob wrote:Seat Ibiza is available for around the same price too, I have seen TV adverts for a model with Sat Nav and alloys that is £10,000.

Very hard for the Chinese to compete with that kind of value from a respected European manufacturer with an extensive dealer network. What would you rather take a chance with your 10000£ on?

patpending wrote:I am a real world person and the two obvious alternatives to MG3 for me are a) Volkswagen Polo and b) Volvo V40, both of which are higher-depreciation (largely since a) lots and b) massively more expensive).

Are you seriously considering buying one of those cars or an MG3 as a serious customer then? What I mean by a real world person is somebody who is not into cars or an MG enthusiast. I'd say that those two groups would look at a variety of cars at different price points and sizes and make an emotional choice, whereas the average buyer who is neither of these things would look at cars on price. How many people who have bought £10,000 MG3s so far chose to buy them even though they could afford a car that was double the price?

Having had a quick look at the Volvo site the V40 starts at £18,995 (not £16,210 as it says on the chart) and the car is quite a bit bigger being nearer the MG6 in size than the MG3 (it's marginally bigger than the MG5, too). I don't really see how it is a fair comparison to use that being as it is a fair bit bigger and twice the price. Especially considering cars like the Seat Ibiza, Skoda Fabia, Kia Rio and Suzuki Swift are NOT included and are (other than the Sandero) the most obvious vehicles to compare it to. Some might argue that nearly new examples of things like the Polo and Fiesta would also be the most obvious comparisons if you work on price grounds.

I think it's a fair enough comparison because it does remind you that in specification the MG3 punches above it's weight. It's interesting to consider that if a car doesn't let you down, doesn't rust, is comfortable and attractive to the owner, then why pay an extra £10k for, basically, VW Group marketing clout if the MG3 does the job?

Brand reputation?

Dealer network?

Pan-European spares and service?

There are many reasons.

Magnette wrote:I think it's a fair enough comparison because it does remind you that in specification the MG3 punches above it's weight. It's interesting to consider that if a car doesn't let you down, doesn't rust, is comfortable and attractive to the owner, then why pay an extra £10k for, basically, VW Group marketing clout if the MG3 does the job?

Maybe, but the only place I've seen comparisons drawn between the MG3 and the Audi A1 is this forum, nowhere else. And the same point can be made about any number of other small cars, such as the four cars that I have named in my previous post, two of which have the 'VW Group marketing clout' for a lot less than £10,000 more.

Here is a Seat Ibiza for £500 more: http://www.seat.co.uk/content/uk/brand/en/models/special-offers/new-cars/ibiza-5dr.html (3 door that I'd prefer is available for £9,995)
Here is a Skoda Fabia for £1,000 less: http://www.skoda.co.uk/models/fabiaestate/fabia-offer (though the Estate version has a more powerful engine that is a fairer comparison with the MG3 for more or less the same price).

I'm not sure how the specs compare, though I notice the Seat comes with Sat Nav that is unavailable on the MG3. Both cars are around a second and a half slower to 60 than the 3 but performance seems less important on a shopping/commuters car which is what cars in this sector are most commonly used as and lets be frank 10.5 seconds to 60 rather than 12 is nothing to get over excited by.

My Mrs was considering a Citroen DS3 and an MG3, also looked at a C3 and a VW Polo.

Her comments after visiting loads of garages last Sunday was that the MG3 looked better and offered more value than any of those other cars mentioned.

I mentioned depreciation to her the other day but she didnt seem bothered as the '3 was so much more affordable in the first place.

Hopefully we will be ordering one on Sunday.

Oh, and we didnt really consider the Audi A1 as a competitor as Audis are generally driven by tw@ts.

Rich tw@ts, it would seem

As a genuine punter would I be right in saying that you looked at cars around the same price (so comparing top spec MG3s to lower spec Polos and DS3s) rather than comparing it to cars that were as much as twice as expensive as an MG3?

Brouwer wrote:Brand reputation?

Dealer network?

Pan-European spares and service?

There are many reasons.

Valid reasons - but in my post I was talked about the actual car itself, only that. You're talking about perception - perception of the brand and perception of a lack of support. Those things are purely subjective and subject to change.

Jobbybob wrote:Maybe, but the only place I've seen comparisons drawn between the MG3 and the Audi A1 is this forum, nowhere else.

It's still a fair comparison surely? You want a small, 5-door car with lots of gadgets - both cars could suffice so the comparison is valid. An invalid one would be to put the MG3 against the A4 or something. Don't forget that many magazine road testers compared the MG3 interior with VWs when picking on points to criticise - if Autocar and the rest will keep harping on about VW quality being superior to MG, then I think it's handy to have an analysis of how much that smarter dashboard will cost you over the next 3 years.

As the original poster said, the A1 was only added as an example of a car with low depreciation - it also opens up discussion as to the nature of depreciation and why cars are valued as they are. Like the other poster who cited the dealer network and pan-european spares network as a plus point which add to the 'value' of a Polo - if you're buying a supposedly bomb-proof VW, what concern is that? The average punter might be 'reassured' by VW garages being everywhere but nobody wants to need to use them. MG coverage is patchy but growing, thats a situation which is going to do more to address that sort of brand perception/reassurance issues.

Magnette wrote:

Jobbybob wrote:Maybe, but the only place I've seen comparisons drawn between the MG3 and the Audi A1 is this forum, nowhere else.

It's still a fair comparison surely? You want a small, 5-door car with lots of gadgets - both cars could suffice so the comparison is valid. An invalid one would be to put the MG3 against the A4 or something.

Or perhaps the Volvo V40 also used in the initial post? A much bigger car, from a different class?

I'll repeat my main point and that is that a the majority of people looking at a £10,000 car will be unlikely to also look at another car that is twice the price. This will either be for the reason that they can't afford to double the budget or if they have £20,000 to spend they probably wouldn't consider the MG as it is off the radar. For £20,000 you could have an MG6, after all. If you took a survey of new car buyers, I'd say that the vast majority of people would base the decision on budget rather than spec. A high spec would be a selling point rather than the basis of the shortlist. So sorry, but I cannot be convinced that the comparison is anything other than spurious, especially when genuine core competitors are ignored in favour of things like the A1 and V40. The revelation that more expensive cars lose more money is something up there with it might rain some time in the next month here in Scotland. That is to say, no revelation whatsoever. Whatever next? Getting more interest if you put a larger sum of money in a bank account?

To take your argument to the logical conclusion, I could say that if you want a 5 door car that does the job then you could have a Dacia Sandero for £6,000 or a ten year old Rover 25 for £1,000 saving a great deal of money over an MG3. If I came on here and did that I would most likely be told I was being daft, and people would be right to say so.

Jobbybob wrote:Rich tw@ts, it would seem

As a genuine punter would I be right in saying that you looked at cars around the same price (so comparing top spec MG3s to lower spec Polos and DS3s) rather than comparing it to cars that were as much as twice as expensive as an MG3?

We started off by looking at cars from 10K - 20K but all in the same class.

The more expensive options were quickly taken off the list when we started to discuss payments etc.

Magnette wrote:

Brouwer wrote:Brand reputation? Dealer network? Pan-European spares and service? There are many reasons.

Valid reasons - but in my post I was talked about the actual car itself, only that. You're talking about perception - perception of the brand and perception of a lack of support. Those things are purely subjective and subject to change.

It isn't "perception" that there isn't a dealer within 100 miles of where I am currently in the UK, and none whatsoever should I decide I want to risk a trip back to the continent.

Brouwer wrote:

Magnette wrote:

Brouwer wrote:Brand reputation? Dealer network? Pan-European spares and service? There are many reasons.

Valid reasons - but in my post I was talked about the actual car itself, only that. You're talking about perception - perception of the brand and perception of a lack of support. Those things are purely subjective and subject to change.

It isn't "perception" that there isn't a dealer within 100 miles of where I am currently in the UK, and none whatsoever should I decide I want to risk a trip back to the continent.

Well, weve had 10 new dealerships already this year and there are apparently many more to follow. Thats a seperate argument though.

MG sold more cars than Subaru last month and only 100 less than Alfa Romeo - and those 2 brands have all of the things mentioned.

Also, with regards to the OP - the metallic paint on the MG3 isnt £500 - I think its £350?!

Even cheaper to run a '3!

What a strange set of posts on here.

A set of comparisons will never be a full one but I fail to see why a "cost of ownership" table is invalid just because one individual might not think the cars shown are all alternatives for him. If they are not, well they;re not.

The answer to the original question - "I wonder how much money I would save by buying an Audi" - is proven to be that buying an Audi actually costs you more money.

Nor can I follow why "being an MG fan" means that a mathematical table proves the intention is to waste money. If the 3 was any other brand it would be an attractive alternative to the Audi.

The list price of the V40 does indeed seem to start at £18,995 making it more expensive. I'll leave the incorrect figure up for today, it won't be the only mistake. It looks like the cheapest T2 spec may have been withdrawn.

Here are the lengths of some of the models per wikipedia:

Audi A1 3,951mm
VW Polo 3,952mm
MG3 3,999mm
Dacia Sandero 4,057mm
MG5 4,363mm
Volvo V40 4,369mm

I'm glad I did that as I find the MG5 is actually about the size of a ZS hatch or V40, and not bigger as I had thought.

snifferdog1 wrote:Also, with regards to the OP - the metallic paint on the MG3 isnt £500 - I think its £350?!

Even cheaper to run a '3!

I found the petrol use was in gallons at the price of litres yesterday, setting myself up really.

I'll change it once more tomorrow, I think.

It's interesting how very much is driven by the low price.

patpending wrote:A set of comparisons will never be a full one but I fail to see why a "cost of ownership" table is invalid just because one individual might not think the cars shown are all alternatives for him. If they are not, well they;re not.

Is it not equally true that because one person thinks an Audi A1 or Volvo V40 is a valid competitor for an MG3 it doesn't make their comparison valid? ;)I named four valid competitors. I have stated that 90% of people buy cars on price, and as such to compare one car with one that is twice is expensive is unrealistic for the MAJORITY of real world buyers (in particular non-car enthusiasts). I really do feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall on this one, but if this was meant to be a personal thing for you rather than some kind of in-depth study that applies as an absolute truth against the key competitors then I apologise for dragging this thread in this direction. If it is meant to be something more in depth and applicable to most punters, then I suggest that you add other £10,000 cars to the chart rather than things like the A1 and V40.

If you're trying to draw definitive conclusions from that along the lines of 'see the MG3 is a safe place to put your money' without clarifying it by saying something along the lines of 'compared to the other cars on my new car shortlist' don't be surprised if people point out issues in much the same way as I have.

patpending wrote:The answer to the original question - "I wonder how much money I would save by buying an Audi" - is proven to be that buying an Audi actually costs you more money.

Maybe I realised this long before everybody else, but I've always been aware that the more you spend on a car the more you will lose. If you just look at the list prices you can tell that the depreciation of an MG3 will have to be almost twice as severe to prove more expensive than an A1. Similarly, if a £250,000 Rolls Royce Phantom loses just 10% in depreciation over three years you would lose more money than two whole MG3s would cost in spite of the percentage loss being so low. I was not surprised, but then I feel that people most people who have £20,000 to spend will construct a shopping list of £20,000 cars and probably not think about buying a £10,000 car. People who look at £10,000 cars tend to not to be able to afford £20,000 ones.

In the same way, if the hairshirted pursuit of depreciation was so important, surely we should all buy £6,000 base spec Dacias whose total value is less than the 3 year depreciation of an MG3?

patpending wrote:Nor can I follow why "being an MG fan" means that a mathematical table proves the intention is to waste money. If the 3 was any other brand it would be an attractive alternative to the Audi.

It's a simple point really, by being an MG fan you are more likely to consider an MG, even if it doesn't fit into the cohort of vehicles you are considering neatly. I'd bet you good money that most people spending £20,000 on a car wouldn't look at something that costs £10,000 regardless of its qualities. It feeds back into my point about people who buy on budget. Put yourself in the layperson punter's shoes. He has £20,000 to spend and as a result he would probably focus on the cars near to the budget. He might consider the V40, the Golf, an Audi A3 or an MG6 for that money. He might consider a smaller A1. His first thought probably won't be to look at a car that is half the price (in spite of the advantages related to that). You on the other hand, would consider the MG3 in that company. You are an enthusiast, you are inclined to look at a cheaper car where a lay punter (which we must remember most car buyers are!) would not.

Flip it around, say it is the Audi that was £10K and the MG3 that had the high list price built upon the image of the brand. The MG3 buyers probably wouldn't consider the A1 in that case, but somebody who liked Audis would probably look at the A1 even if they could afford the hypothetical £20,000 MG3.

snifferdog1 wrote:

Brouwer wrote:

Magnette wrote:

Brouwer wrote:Brand reputation? Dealer network? Pan-European spares and service? There are many reasons.

Valid reasons - but in my post I was talked about the actual car itself, only that. You're talking about perception - perception of the brand and perception of a lack of support. Those things are purely subjective and subject to change.

It isn't "perception" that there isn't a dealer within 100 miles of where I am currently in the UK, and none whatsoever should I decide I want to risk a trip back to the continent.

Well, weve had 10 new dealerships already this year and there are apparently many more to follow. Thats a seperate argument though. MG sold more cars than Subaru last month and only 100 less than Alfa Romeo - and those 2 brands have all of the things mentioned.

They also have more than one car, more than one engine, more than one transmission...

I thought MG sold 47 cars last month? So in that context, Alfa Romeo sold 3 times as many cars. Or, as this thread is talking about percentages, 300% more cars.

I guess that shows the folly of dealing with percentages of smaller numbers.