FIRST COST AND RUNNING. COST.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16938, 12 January 1923, Page 3

FIRST COST AND RUNNING. COST.

THEIR COMPARATIVE IMPORTANCE. One of the main principles upon which the British motor industry, regarded as a whole, has always based ;ts ; programme of output is that it is • necessary to consider, not merely what ; a vehicle costs in the first instance, but rather the total expenditure involved 1 by its first cost and its subsequent run- ; ning casts. The* more casual type of ; purchaser is often influenced wholly j or mainly by the question of first cost. He knows what he is prepared to spend j at the moment, and takes no careful . account of subsequent, but for all that, inevitable expenditure. This, of j course, applies more generally to the buyers of private motor-cars than t<» j those of commercial motor vehicles, but j even in the latter sphere first cost is apt to be given too much relative ini porta nee, because it is an immediate j rather than a prospective commitment Now suppose that a three-ton motor vehicle has a working life of 160,0.10 miles. It will probably cost about- 3<l | a mile to supply the engine of this vehicle with petrol; in other word'.. \ the fuel cost will amount to £1 for J every eighty miles covered. Then, by \ the time- that 100,000 miles have been j completed, no Jess than £2OOO woul 1 have been spent on the petrol needed for propulsion. In ether words, the petrol bill alone is considerably bigger than the original bill for the- vehicle itself. It follows that it is more important to save, say, 10 per cent upon the petrol bill than 10 per cent, or even 15 per cent, upon the vehicle bill The term “cheap’* is one that is frequently mi . - • 7 A low priced or ■ tide is not necessarily a cheap one. It is only cheap if its price is low | having due regard to its efficiency, re- | liability and durability. Suppose by scientific design, and great care in

manufacture we are able to cut down weight without sacrificing strength, then we shall almost certainly effect savings later on in respect of fuel and tyres, but the first cost of the vehice will probably be increased. if, on tli3 other hand, we effect the same saving in weight without regard to loss of strength, we may be able to sell the vehicle at a lower price; but, wild-? it may be fairly economical in petr >1 and tyres for a short time, it will presently become subject to breakdown, and the repair bill will mount up unpleasantly. We must furthermore remember that an increased repair bill is detrimental from more than one point of view. In itself it represents unproductive expenditure. Less directly it implies the presence of a vehicle in the shops which, ought to be out on the road earning money for. or giving service, to. its owner. In the case of a retail trader an unreliable van means the loss of custom, inasmuch as clients are annoyed by the absence of punctuality in deliveries. Equally, a motor haulage business in which unreliable vehicles arc employed ais doomed to failure. On the whole, however, the British industry has made low running cost resulting from a combination of reliability. efficiency and durability, its main object. Many manufacturers in other countries have given more pro minence to the desirability of low first cost, which is undoubtedly an admirable selling point. These latter mar have been right, or wrong, but the noint that it is desired to emphasise is that it is not necessarilv wise for either the manufacturer or the user to make a fetish of low first cost. The motor vehicle is bought not to look at, but to give service. Service cannot Ik? given without cost, and the cost involved i« an essential factor in the original transaction. Tire question for any business concern, having use for motor vehicles, to ask itself is really ho-.v much the firm is prepared to spend per annum on the conduct of its transport, and not how much is to be paid at seme particular moment for the purchase of plant.