If its a 1997 then its a 2.0L, what else do you need to know!
tatts2,
Aug 6, 10:12pm
Yea but red is faster
bigmacnfries,
Aug 6, 10:14pm
They will use around 10.5-13.0L/100km
bigmacnfries,
Aug 6, 10:17pm
A lot of know f alls on here.
tony9,
Aug 6, 10:50pm
Turbo or Manual? What sort of driving conditions? How many Kkms per year? What do you mean by running costs? Petrol, servicing, tyres, insurance, rego etc., etc.
bigmacnfries,
Aug 6, 11:14pm
Turbo or Manual? I think you will find 1997 was only non turbo. Asking OP if it was a blue one was trying to make him look like an idiot that hadn't supplied enough vehicle info, I think that's backfired on you buddy.
Stuart--the slanging match below is because theres some possible options with your car. Please specify -Engine size and turbo/non turbo, gearbox type
quickbuck,
Aug 7, 12:45am
AND As dad always said, "Fuel is the smallest expense of owning a vehicle". So, cost per Km will depend a lot on how many you do.
stuart,
Aug 7, 2:15am
Its not my car. It belongs to an employee. Okay, so I did not ask the cc rating (reckon its 2.0) but apart from that the right people or organisation can provide me with a running cost per km so I can pay my worker for his mileage.
mojo49,
Aug 7, 2:16am
And as a qualified accountant and economist I can tell you there is no such thing as "cost per km" for any vehicle. Why? Because the way you determine "cost" for anything depends on the type of decision making process you are going to use that :cost" information for. Non-accountants and management accountants are the worst people in the world to ask a question about cost, because most accountants don't understand the meaning of the word "cost" other than in layman's terms. But kaz is right. You need to supply a whole lot more information to get a credible answer to your question. Also if a red one goes faster than a blue one then colour is important.
Trying to calculate what it actually costs your employee is usually an exercise in stinginess.
sw20,
Aug 7, 2:23am
Easier to just pay them 77c a km.
kazbanz,
Aug 7, 2:40am
I agree with the above posts. The 77c/km takes into account all running costs not just the fuel
mojo49,
Aug 7, 2:49am
Also the 77 c/km only applies up to 5000km/annum. The link in the pico42 post explains it better. The rate should drop a lot if you are reimbursing say 10000km/annum.
stuart,
Aug 10, 5:13am
Clearly I wasted my time asking here.And you especially, do not know what you are talking about.
pandai,
Aug 10, 5:57am
You didn't provide enough information for any sort of meaningful answer.
kevymtnz,
Aug 10, 7:02am
if its a turbo then a new engine every 160,000
skull,
Aug 10, 3:03pm
Stuart I would say it is more likely that you are not understanding what you are reading.
mojo49,
Aug 10, 3:15pm
After over 45 years as a CA I think I do know what I am talking about on this subject. Just pay the 77c/km since you are not open to any other suggestion, such as reading the link to the IRD posted above and recommended by me to improve your understanding of the subject. Otherwise stick with your current state of ignorance on the subject. After all "ignorance is bliss".
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.