A £82.5k California - OUCH!

[ChrisB]

UK customers are paying a lot more for most things now due to the £1 having some wobbles due to [whisper]...... b r e x i t*

*sorry for swearing

The 'unmentionable is costing me an average of £250 a month on exchange rate losses.

 

[Bobbybus]

£82.5k is more than I paid for my house in '96!

 

[WelshGas]

£82.5k is more than I paid for my house in '96!

And now?

 

[Bobbybus]

House worth around £240k now, but i had a 25 year mortgage to pay that off (paid off early). There is no way I could afford a top spec California Ocean without another mortgage and I might be dead by then!

 

[WelshGas]

House worth around £240k now, but i had a 25 year mortgage to pay that off (paid off early). There is no way I could afford a top spec California Ocean without another mortgage and I might be dead by then!

So in 12 ( 22 should be) years the house increased in value by 400% or so.
Using the reverse logic the California would have been about £20k in 1996, which according to an old T4 price list wasn’t far from the actual cost.
My mistake, 22 yrs.

 

[Amarillo]

So in 12 years the house increased in value by 400% or so.
Using the reverse logic the California would have been about £20k in 1996, which according to an old T4 price list wasn’t far from the actual cost.

But - a £20,000 ‘96 California (or equivalent) might be worth £10,000 now, whereas £20,000 invested in property in ‘96 might be worth £80,000 now. By that measure, investing in property over 20+ years is eight times better than investing in a California.


Follow my blog: www.au-revoir.eu

 

[WelshGas]

But - a £20,000 ‘96 California (or equivalent) might be worth £10,000 now, whereas £20,000 invested in property in ‘96 might be worth £80,000 now. By that measure, investing in property over 20+ years is eight times better than investing in a California.


Follow my blog: www.au-revoir.eu

Who was talking about investing? Where was that even mentioned?

I was talking about the relative cost of a California nowadays compared to in 1996.

 

[Amarillo]

Who was talking about investing? Where was that even mentioned?

I was talking about the relative cost of a California nowadays compared to in 1996.

Indeed - and you made a good point. But you did also examine the four fold increase in property value over 22 years (assuming the 12 years you stated was a typo or miscalculation). I simply extended the two themes to compare property value appreciation with California depreciation.

Buying property need not be expensive in the long run. Buying a California almost certainly will be.


Follow my blog: www.au-revoir.eu

 

[WelshGas]

Indeed - and you made a good point. But you did also examine the four fold increase in property value over 22 years (assuming the 12 years you stated was a typo or miscalculation). I simply extended the two themes to compare property value appreciation with California depreciation.

Buying property need not be expensive in the long run. Buying a California almost certainly will be.


Follow my blog: www.au-revoir.eu

No, 12 years according to the Posts by @Bobbybus . His property had gone up by 400% or so, as had a California according to a 1994 Price list, according to my “ back of an envelope “ calculation.
So a California is just as expensive now as it was back in the mid 1990’s, compared to his property.

 

[Amarillo]

No, 12 years according to the Posts by @Bobbybus . His property had gone up by 400% or so, as had a California according to a 1994 Price list, according to my “ back of an envelope “ calculation.
So a California is just as expensive now as it was back in the mid 1990’s, compared to his property.

Maybe I've missed something then.

I'm assuming his property was ~£80,000 in 1996 and ~£240,000 in 2018 or maybe 2019. By my calculations the increase in value (£160,000) is 200% of the original value over 22 (or 23) years, or it is now 300% of its value 22 years ago. But, perhaps I have had one drink too many tonight.

This is where I'm pulling @Bobbybus' figures from.

£82.5k is more than I paid for my house in '96!

And now?

House worth around £240k now

 

[Turfschipper]

I dont understand the big price gap from transporter to beach.

Think Calis could be 10k cheaper easily. Look what they ask for the grand, will be way cheaper than an ocean. Which is ridiculous.

 

[soulstyledevon]

You cannot compare a California to a house.
A California is not an investment either.

You can only compare like for like and in that sense it would need to be another vehicle.

Once you have paid the initial California subscription, from there on in it becomes a fairly cheap vehicle compared to what else you may run. All running costs are similar to that of a premium vehicle.
Compare it to a BMW M4 at £70k what would the value of that vehicle be after:
3 years...
5 years...
7 years...

10 years from purchase i would imagine a value of maybe £15-18k
The california on the other hand. I would imagine would still retain values around £30k mark...?

 

[Bobbybus]

Maybe I've missed something then.

I'm assuming his property was ~£80,000 in 1996 and ~£240,000 in 2018 or maybe 2019. By my calculations the increase in value (£160,000) is 200% of the original value over 22 (or 23) years, or it is now 300% of its value 22 years ago. But, perhaps I have had one drink too many tonight.

This is where I'm pulling @Bobbybus' figures from.

Yep. 23 years come March 2019, not 12 (or 13). £74.5k.

 

[WelshGas]

My mistake 22 yrs, but doesn’t make any difference as I was using a 1995 T4 California price list - admittedly German for my attempted calculation.

All I was attempting to show is that the California hasn’t JUST become expensive, but has always been comparatively expensive if you compare it to current house prices.

 

[WelshGas]

You cannot compare a California to a house.
A California is not an investment either.

You can only compare like for like and in that sense it would need to be another vehicle.

Once you have paid the initial California subscription, from there on in it becomes a fairly cheap vehicle compared to what else you may run. All running costs are similar to that of a premium vehicle.
Compare it to a BMW M4 at £70k what would the value of that vehicle be after:
3 years...
5 years...
7 years...

10 years from purchase i would imagine a value of maybe £15-18k
The california on the other hand. I would imagine would still retain values around £30k mark...?

Not comparing it to a house or another vehicle or investing.
Just trying to show that a California hasn’t just become expensive, it has always been expensive and it’s cost has increased % wise approximately in line with @Bobbybus ‘s 1996 house. It has never been cheap.

 

[WelshGas]

I dont understand the big price gap from transporter to beach.

Think Calis could be 10k cheaper easily. Look what they ask for the grand, will be way cheaper than an ocean. Which is ridiculous.

You have to at least compare comparative base vehicles.

So no point comparing a 84hp Trendline with a 150 Beach.
A 150 DSG Highline with 17” alloys, swivel cabin seats and a Diesel Parking Heater + 1 Leisure Battery comes in at about £45,000.
That excludes side windows, any form of sound deadening and No Interior body panels or floor, or even a rear seat.

 

[GrannyJen]

I don't compare the California to anything. It is a virtually unique vehicle, possibly only the MP comes close in comparison, so any comparison is going to be so full of "If's and but's" it's probably meaningless.

Equally the real cost to each of us is so varied. It has saved me the cost of a second car, a fortune in hotel bills, given an unquantifiable amount of enhancement to my life and the depreciation is so small that it makes it cheaper to own than my sister's one-series Beemer.

At the end of the day it's either worth it to me or it isn't. If it is then I just close my eyes and dish up the dosh.

 

[willwander]

Just spotted a £81K Ocean....Second hand!! 5K on the clock

 

[ArunAlec]

Just spotted a £81K Ocean....Second hand!! 5K on the clock

Must have the torch for that money!

 

[Volkywagen]

Range Rover territory

 

[WelshGas]

Range Rover territory

But how many Range Rovers are actually paid for?
And you can’t make a cuppa in a Range Rover.

 

[Jay20cali]

Vw Cali in 2008 pre reg was 30k....
Now the equivalent pre reg 50k+
A pre reg I bought in 08 for 30k is still basically worth 30k so I should of just kept it and had 11 years of depreciation free motoring.....now there’s not many vehicles you can do that with..apart from classic cars..
Here’s hoping our new California will keep its value well....

 

[Jay20cali]

But how many Range Rovers are actually paid for?
And you can’t make a cuppa in a Range Rover.

Like wg said...
Ever slept in a Range Rover or gone off for two weeks holiday in one with your food money and bedding....I think not and how disappointing some b&bs can be,,and how expensive £130 per night for a cheap b&b....I know this is clean and it’s mine and I park it where the best view is!..

 

[Moakesy]

Bought my van last year ex-demo when it was six months old......heavily loaded and I worked out it would have cost £81,042 on the road when new. I paid nothing like that.

Not worried that there is a lot that could wrong...nothing has so far. Not worried about payload either....I've got the torch and it ain't that heavy!!

I enjoy it for what it is and I wouldn't have paid full whack for it, I know that. I feel like I got a bargain, top spec van for medium spec money. Apart from that, I leave the worrying to others...