Are VFM cars really VFM? - Cabs are wrong examples? Cars that are popular with fleet owners (like Indica, Logan, etc) are often recommended to private car buyers based on the argument that "If cabbies can buy these reliable and cheap to maintain cars, so can you".
But after going thru the ownership threads of such vehicles [greenhorn's never-ending Indica voes( http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/long-t...g-18-a-19.html) and anilkalvani's dejection with Logan Diesel ( http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/test-d...dci-dlx-6.html) - sadly, both seem ready to sell off their vehicles out of sheer frustration], iam left wondering whether fleet owners are right in their choice of vehicles. Wouldn't better-built cars (albeit at highter initial costs) be safer bets for them?
Looks like these so-called "Value For Money" cars, in the long run, end up being either duds or white elephants (expensive to keep running), spending more time in workshop than on roads.
Experts please clarify on these:
1. Does what seems VFM while in showroom translate to still being VMF after 3-4 years? Iam sure fleet owners are in for the long haul and do not sell cars early.
2. Is it not true that cheaper cars (out of showroom) have cheaper components, which translates to increased maintenance costs over the long term; their-by nullifying their "VFM"-ness?
3. Should private buyers look at cabs as example for "reliablity" and "cheap maintenance"?
Thanks,
WR
Last edited by WindRide : 19th March 2010 at 20:15.
|