2 have been imported used, both in 2023; one is a 2014 / 8k km and the other a 2015 / 18k km. Taxable values were €989k and €918k, with taxes at €119k and €112k.
The one currently for sale is likely the latter.
In Europe, it looks like you can get one for about €1.8m, so importing one yourself is probably the only option if you wanted one…
My old warhorse, a 2001 VW Passat, is getting to the point where I don’t really want to do any major repairs, especially since its resale value is only around 500–1000€. I’d like to upgrade to something slightly newer that better fits my current needs. I’ve been looking at newer cars and thought I’d put my train of thought out here for the forum’s “hive mind” to critique.
My search criteria are as follows:
The criteria above significantly limit the options, but it still came as a bit of a surprise that with a 15,000€ budget, you practically can’t get anything that ticks all the boxes, at least not in Finland. Apparently, low-mileage petrol cars are a rarity nowadays and are priced accordingly. The options seem to be a 200k km car in the 15–20k€ range, but I’d likely end up with something I don’t actually like (e.g., a Subaru or an Opel with a poor trim level). Alternatively, I’d have to spend 30k€, which would get me a 100k km car that I actually like—which sounds like a better deal relatively speaking—but for my taste, that’s too much money for a car. In principle, I could afford it, but it would definitely slow down my wealth accumulation in the coming years.
I already test-drove one 30k€ car and I really liked it. I received a financing offer with a 3.99% interest rate; the effective annual interest rate would be around 5.5% after all costs. That’s pretty much at my limit, but I think it’s still a tolerable rate compared to liquidating investments to buy the car in “cash.”
I wonder if I should start looking at diesels after all, or just accept that with the above requirement list, I have to be prepared to pay more for a car than I’d perhaps like.
If a manual transmission and a sedan work for you. There is another similar one on Nettiauto with more mileage but at a cheaper price.
All-wheel drive and towing capacity narrow down your search significantly. This constraint likely rules out choosing an electric car if we stick to your €15k price limit, which I otherwise find sensible because for that amount of money, it’s realistic to get a usable car for years to come.
I would leave the choice between diesel and petrol until after you have first selected the body styles that work for your usage situation. Depending on the manufacturer, one engine type may be so clearly superior to the other that it dictates the choice on its own.
As an example, if a Passat has worked for you, why couldn’t the next one be a Passat too? Both petrol and diesel versions have been made with all-wheel drive and manual transmissions.
If the price range can be raised closer to the €30k car you test-drove, then you’ll start finding reasonably new electric cars, but the 1200 kg towing capacity of the Skoda Enyaq (which comes to mind first) isn’t enough for you. In this price range, I can’t find any others with an 1800 kg towing capacity besides the Audi e-tron.
The old Mercedes EQC also tows 1800 kg, but I don’t want to recommend it so I don’t ruin my reputation as a Mercedes man.
Subaru Forester XT / Volvo XC 70 / Any suitable AWD from VAG.
This partially drifts into politics, but it is a significant issue regarding the costs of motoring. Will driving an electric vehicle (EV) remain as profitable in the future compared to petrol and diesel cars if a kilometer tax (kilometrivero) is eventually introduced in Finland?
I have understood that in connection with a possible kilometer tax, fuel taxation could be reduced. If this happens, the price of petrol and diesel could drop, making driving internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles cheaper. At the same time, the greatest advantage of an electric car—cheap energy for use—could diminish if EV drivers also pay for driving based on mileage.
In addition, the depreciation of electric cars is a bit concerning. If a car is expensive to buy, its value drops quickly, and a potential kilometer tax increases operating costs, the advantage of an electric car could narrow significantly compared to a petrol/diesel car. Of course, I hope that in the future, repairing electric cars will become cheaper/easier so that people would dare to buy EVs with higher mileage. It would be interesting to hear how others see this matter.
Will electric motoring remain “economically sensible” in the future if a kilometer tax is eventually introduced in Finland?
We drive over 200km every weekday with an electric car, and the total cost for this electricity has been about €5 (total cost of 12c/kWh). If a tax of 5-10 cents is added to every kilometer, the cost of the trip could even quintuple, and we would be paying over €400/month in mileage tax!
It goes without saying that electric driving would end there and we’d switch back to fossils, because it would make sense to move back to diesel, which would be half the price. The car’s drivability remains pretty much the same whether I drove my previous nearly same-age Volvo or the current electric car. An electric car is just twice as expensive, its value drops faster, and no real advantage remains from using an electric car other than the fact that you can “refuel” it at home.
It is 100% certain that this does not promote the adoption of electric vehicles.
I wonder if there would be any sense in taxing motoring only to cover the costs caused by motoring? Currently, only a fraction of the tax euros paid by motorists flows back into the roads etc.
Personally, I see it such that the probability of an expensive (engine/transmission) overhaul is higher in a high-mileage internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle than a (battery overhaul) in a high-mileage EV, excluding those very first-generation (< 2017) EVs that lack proper battery cooling. Especially if one checks the SOH (State of Health) value of the specific unit’s battery, the probability of battery-related surprises is quite small.
In my opinion, this is a bad idea. Society should primarily tax things it wants less of, and strive to avoid taxing things it wants more of. I’d rather see private motoring taxed than labor.
The Finnish economy is in a slump and new tax sources need to be found constantly, so it’s futile to imagine that by taxing something more, taxation would decrease elsewhere.
The road network must be kept in good condition for the sake of security of supply as well, so money should be poured into it from everyone. It doesn’t help even if you live in an Eira penthouse; you are still dependent on the functionality of Finland’s infrastructure. e.g., food, defense capability.
Correspondingly, it is useless to imagine that by lowering taxation somewhere, it would not raise taxes somewhere else. In other words, if motoring is taxed less than it is now, taxation somewhere else will almost certainly rise, likely in an area where taxation is even more harmful than taxing motoring.
Where has it been said that motoring would be taxed less than it is now? Nowhere. The planned kilometer tax will quite likely end up being more expensive, even if the car tax were abolished. Motoring is an eternal cash cow for the taxman, and the “harmfulness” of motoring is a convenient excuse to always tax more.
Electricity would need to cost over 60 cents/kWh to become more expensive than driving a petrol car. I calculated this based on a consumption of 7 liters. For diesel, the break-even point is probably around 50 cents.
In the post I was responding to, it was hoped that motoring taxes wouldn’t collect more money than what is needed for road maintenance. I replied to that saying it was a bad idea. You replied to that… I recommend reading more than one post of a discussion if you want to participate in it.
You responded:
“Society should primarily tax things it wants less of,”
Does society want less driving or more taxes?
My answer is more taxes. The “harmfulness” of driving is merely an excuse to tax it.
Do you mean that if driving decreased by xx% due to higher taxation, resulting in tax revenues also dropping by x%, the state would have achieved its goal?
It’s as if there were only two options for what can be taxed. Besides, taxing private motoring is often effectively taxing labor. 
A tax comparable to fossil fuels seems like a quite excessive idea. EVs already pay a good chunk of tax on their motive power. But that’s not enough, because driving is too cheap! It must be at least as expensive as with other vehicles; that is only fair and just. Since driving is cheap, one must pay many times more in tax so that driving becomes at least as expensive!
a) EVs already pay about 30-40% tax in electricity (note that even e-bikers contribute to this)
b) For diesel, the share of taxes is currently approx. 45-50%
c) For gasoline, the share of taxes is currently approx. 50-60%
With a 10-cent kilometer tax, the share of taxes in an EV driver’s fuel would be about 80%. Looked at the other way, the tax-free price is taxed at 400%! Fair and just.
This is drifting a bit into a political discussion, but to my knowledge, Finland has a goal to halve greenhouse gas emissions from traffic by 2030 (I don’t remember the starting year, but we are already behind the target). How does this logic work if we want people to prefer driving EVs, but then take away the greatest benefit of EVs—the affordability of driving? Weren’t we supposed to want fewer fossil-fuel-powered cars?
I’ll stay tuned to see how the situation develops and start looking for a suitable diesel Volvo on Nettiauto.