running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

by dbroada Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:12 am

Can anybody comment about the relative owning costs between the Pug/Fiat chassis against the Mercedes? We have a Nuevo on order but have found a couple of pennies tucked down behind the sofa and are considering the Mercedes if we can revise our order.

Obviously the Mercedes has the better reputation (especially in auto form) but how does insurance, fuel consumption & service costs/frequency compare.

We intend to keep whatever we buy a LONG time and expect to do about 10000 miles a year.

by bikeralw Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:08 am

This makes interesting reading.
http://pmmonline.co.uk/news/vehicles-most-dpf-problems-revealed

by gemdeco Mon Nov 16, 2015 12:43 pm

Hi
I think you have to be very careful of surveys,as they can be very misleading.I purchased a Merc because I thought it was the best to buy you often see comments on the forum ,if only I could afford a Merc,I bought 2nd hand to save some money The Merc cab is more basic than the PUG but overall I am more than happy with mine ,It is a manual which I wanted unfortunately no air-con but see other threads about pay loads you may wish to upgrade ,if you do get everything in writing as a lot seems to go wrong
regards
Alan

by Peter Brown Mon Nov 16, 2015 1:11 pm

Any difference in the day to day running costs will be marginal.

My Merc had fuel injectors fail at 3 yrs 17,000 miles and nearly failed MOT because of brake balance and uneven disc wear at 4 yrs 23,000 miles - yet to be investigated. One of the forum members had a rear spring snap at I think about a year and another found the wrong springs fitted.

When I bought my van there was no Peugeot with an equivalent layout. The Malvern is super to drive and of course has rear wheel drive and I'm VERY happy with it but now I could get the same van on a Peugeot chassis I could not justify the MUCH greater purchase cost as most time is spent 'living' in the van rather than 'driving' it.

by Gromit Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:09 pm

Peter Brown wrote:I could not justify the MUCH greater purchase cost as most time is spent 'living' in the van rather than 'driving' it.

In a nutshell Peter. up!

(My emphasis in quote.)

With the comparatively very low mileages we do (as compared to "White Van Man", who I guess provides the oft-quoted base vehicle reputations and data comparisons) the initial cost of purchase and the cost of servicing, spares and repairs become far more significant to us than to WVM.

Never a simple comparison, but if the cheaper alternative is good enough for the job, that seems to answer much of the question.

Dave

by Liam Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:17 pm

If it's any help -

Just got back from Mercedes having had the first service done on my Malvern - £290 the poorer!

This includes oil and fuel filters (not forgetting the screen wash!!) - but I declined to have the brake fluid changed (which is recommended every 2 years - Chassis was produced in Dec 2013) on the basis that I took delivery in June 2014.

It's only money!

Liam

by Claytaa Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:27 pm

Having had both the Merc and the Puegeot there is, in my opinion, absolutely no comparison. The Merc is better in every respect, as for the extra cost, it should be. It's ok saying we live in them and don't drive them but as I have been to Spain and back three times in the last 12 months so having the Merc is wonderful. If you have the dosh go for it, You won't regret it.

by Peter Brown Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:41 pm

I haven't heard of the Peugeots having major mechanical faults in the first 4 years and I'm sure someone would have posted on here if they had - as we have with the Mercedes faults.

by artheytrate Mon Nov 16, 2015 6:35 pm

Our Peugeot based Broadway is now 20 month old and has 16,000 miles on the clock it has done 4 journeys down to Benidorm and has not missed a beat, we are very pleased with it.

John.

by burlingtonboaby Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:14 pm

I know of three other Puggie drivers in my area (none A/S) who have had to replace their EGR valves in recent years, the problem seems to with the older Ford Puma 130Bhp engines.
Although not a major repair, it could lead to a major breakdown if you ignore the warning symbol.
I like the Puggie, nice to drive, lots of torque handles well, however would be put off purchasing another van of similar age.
I've had to replace three EGR valves in my vans, costing around £460 a time .
My annual mileage has reduced by 50% so a New Merc would be wasted on me.
Boaby

by merv Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:29 pm

Isn't the other consideration for the Mercedes the fact that it's a proper auto? The only other kind of 'auto' is the Fiat comfortmatic about which there are plenty of adverse comments.
I'm trying to get my wife to share the motorcaravan driving and she normally drives an auto (DSG) golf which she loves.

by Peter Brown Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:43 pm

Yes the auto is a consideration but it is roughly £20,000 more for a Malvern compared to a Broadway FB with same interior - expensive gearbox. I'm glad I didn't have that choice when I bought my Merc.

by PLOUGHLIN Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:02 pm

£20,000????
AS current brochure price has Malvern + Premium pack ££10,000 more than Broadway FB + Premium pack + Comfort-matic GB.

Well worth it in my opinion.

Incidentally according to AS the comfort-matic comes only with a 50 BHP engine? hugegrins

by dbroada Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:46 pm

He he - looks like no real concensus. If you can afford it the Mercedes is better but not necessarily by the difference. Pretty much what I expected.

For health reasons I want the auto so I have ordered the Fiat (yes I have seen the adverse comments). We have just come back from a few days out and about with a hired Swift. We were very happy with the van (Fiat) but am just trying to gauge if we would get more smiles from a Mercedes.

I can probably put up with 50BHP, that's only a little bit less than my Transit

by padraigpost Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:45 am

dbroada wrote:

I can probably put up with 50BHP, that's only a little bit less than my Transit

The Fiat comes with a 150bhp engine not 50bhp, the Peugeot version has the 130bhp engine.
Don

by Peter Brown Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:45 am

PLOUGHLIN wrote:£20,000????
AS current brochure price has Malvern + Premium pack ££10,000 more than Broadway FB + Premium pack + Comfort-matic GB.

I was struggling with the mobile version of the AS website on my phone!

I would go for the Merc if I had to have auto but personally don't need it so Malvern £71,000 v Broadway FB @ £59,200 = £11,800 difference.

by dbroada Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:56 am

Peter, I know the 50BHP was a misprint pointed out by Plough link. I'm on my tablet and can't find the smileys.

We are now off to the dealer to have a good look at both (if they still have them) to make our final final decision for the 105th time.

by PLOUGHLIN Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:52 am

padraigpost wrote:
dbroada wrote:

I can probably put up with 50BHP, that's only a little bit less than my Transit
The Fiat comes with a 150bhp engine not 50bhp, the Peugeot version has the 130bhp engine.
Don

As dbroada says, AS have a misprint on their home page for Peugeot Coachbuilds, says 50 bhp.

I believe all now have the 150 bhp engine manual or "automatic". That's what AS say on their home page, but that could be wrong. hugegrins

by dbroada Tue Nov 17, 2015 4:29 pm

PLOUGHLIN wrote:As dbroada says, AS have a misprint on their home page for Peugeot Coachbuilds, says 50 bhp.

I believe all now have the 150 bhp engine manual or "automatic". That's what AS say on their home page, but that could be wrong.

and sorry for the auto-correction of your forum name

running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton

Re: running costs, Nuevo v Stanton