The Lemon Fool

Mike4 wrote:

Padders72 wrote:Personally I can't see the sense of a hybrid, to me they combine the worst of both technologies and mean you are lugging around a heavy battery pack the main benefit of which is to circumvent city centre clean air charging rather than a genuine environmental benefit.

As I understand it, the point of a hybrid is to get the tax benefits, whilst being able to run it on petrol 100% of the time. This is why so many private hire taxis are Nissan Leafs. Or maybe this benefit has changed now.

No, both posts have completely missed the point about hybrids. In fact you get he best of both technologies. The battery is quite small as it only needs to store a small amount of energy and you don't "run it on petrol 100% of the time" - it's more like 50% of the time in town driving as you get back the energy that would have been wasted when you slow for junctions or lights. The result is that the fuel usage is at about 50% better than a pure petrol car. In our case, the extra cost of our Toyota Auris would be recouped in 2-3 years, plus a smooth and quiet running automatic. And as we always keep our cars for 7 years, the saving on a petrol car is substantial.
The tax benefits are now much reduced as since last year there is road tax to pay.

Nocton wrote:

Mike4 wrote:

Padders72 wrote:Personally I can't see the sense of a hybrid, to me they combine the worst of both technologies and mean you are lugging around a heavy battery pack the main benefit of which is to circumvent city centre clean air charging rather than a genuine environmental benefit.

As I understand it, the point of a hybrid is to get the tax benefits, whilst being able to run it on petrol 100% of the time. This is why so many private hire taxis are Nissan Leafs. Or maybe this benefit has changed now.

No, both posts have completely missed the point about hybrids. In fact you get he best of both technologies. The battery is quite small as it only needs to store a small amount of energy and you don't "run it on petrol 100% of the time" - it's more like 50% of the time in town driving as you get back the energy that would have been wasted when you slow for junctions or lights. The result is that the fuel usage is at about 50% better than a pure petrol car. In our case, the extra cost of our Toyota Auris would be recouped in 2-3 years, plus a smooth and quiet running automatic. And as we always keep our cars for 7 years, the saving on a petrol car is substantial.
The tax benefits are now much reduced as since last year there is road tax to pay.

I'm definitely confused now.

So if you run yours on petrol 50% of the time, what do you run it on the other 50%?

Or are you saying it goes twice as far on a gallon of petrol than an equivalent pure petrol car, so this is equivalent to running on petrol 50% of the time?

Please bear in mind I've never even driven a hybrid so know nothing about them. Is the engine connected to the wheels or just to a generator?

Mike4 wrote:

airbus330 wrote:The only promising thing I have read is that on current data leccy cars seem to be quite reliable, but since the majority are less than 3 years old and being a small cohort, is this reliable data?

I think it probably is, because an electric car is WAY less complex mechanically than an equivalent ICE car, although I am by no means expert on the subject. From what I hear (third hand) about Teslas, far more problems occur in the software than in the mechanics.

Yes, this is what I have read in multiple locations too. It does raise the thorny questions on who fixes (and pays) for the software mod when it misbehaves. In the Airbus world software gremlins come to light surprisingly frequently and take an age before a fix is worked out and installed. This all probably feels manageable in the low density Tesla world just now, but when these leccy cars are the majority the consumer is going to be very beholden to the manufacturer. Unless, of course, a new breed of back street car hacker develops who is a dab hand with a keyboard, rather than a spanner!

AF62 wrote:Not that wealthy! A Fiat 124

Nice!



Scott.

AF62 wrote:Some cities have already restricted, banned, or put emissions charges on petrol and diesel cars - will this continue or accelerate.

Restricted or charged more for, certainly.

But has any major city gone as far as to ban petrol or diesel vehicles?

Personally I have no intention of ever driving anything other than a petrol car. If that means I end up driving a 15 year old car in my eighties, then so be it.

[quote="Lootman"

Personally I have no intention of ever driving anything other than a petrol car. If that means I end up driving a 15 year old car in my eighties, then so be it.[/quote]



I tend to agree but I wonder how long petrol stations will survive the mass movement to electric vehicles ?

Until recently I was driving a sixteen year old car in my seventies. I was happy with that and am still driving a 22 year old Jeep.

feder1 wrote:The future of cars seem confusing to me and if you wanted a car for low mileage leisure purposes and to keep for a long time, is petrol best?

Budget 20-30k.

Are you buying a car or a fleet?

My new "white" cost £16K new just over four years ago and has done 81K miles. It's diesel as most of my motoring is long distance motorway. It's very efficient on fuel and comfortable to drive and sit in. I anticipate I will get 250K miles from it before its demise.

For low mileage you need petrol. If you're keeping for a long time then probably look at three years old as most of the "upfront" depreciation will have been paid by some other fool.

AiY

swill453 wrote:

AF62 wrote:Not that wealthy! A Fiat 124

Nice!



Scott.

Nope - he said he wasn't that wealthy

https://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C1309663

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-detail ... 2169127261

Paul

Electric cars are said to be cheap to service and mechanically reliable as there is less to go wrong, and the battery decay profile is slow. But for optimal performance they rely hugely on software to cosset the battery, and there Tesla has the advantage. But with all things dominated by software, being an early adopter is risky, as it might be buggy, manufacturers lose interest in updates quickly, and clever new software might require a gadget your car doesn't have.

Mobile phones seem to have a 2-3 year life, they might still work electronically, but the world has moved on. For a car, you'd expect much more than that, but depreciation could be cruel if every year the new models were both better and cheaper than the old, as is likely in a fast-moving field.

Leasing an electric car covers much of that, its a car as a service, and after the lease expires you can move on. But if you buy a new car to do 6k miles a year in until it rusts, you are very exposed.

Nocton wrote:

Mike4 wrote:

Padders72 wrote:Personally I can't see the sense of a hybrid, to me they combine the worst of both technologies and mean you are lugging around a heavy battery pack the main benefit of which is to circumvent city centre clean air charging rather than a genuine environmental benefit.

As I understand it, the point of a hybrid is to get the tax benefits, whilst being able to run it on petrol 100% of the time. This is why so many private hire taxis are Nissan Leafs. Or maybe this benefit has changed now.

No, both posts have completely missed the point about hybrids. In fact you get he best of both technologies. The battery is quite small as it only needs to store a small amount of energy and you don't "run it on petrol 100% of the time" - it's more like 50% of the time in town driving as you get back the energy that would have been wasted when you slow for junctions or lights. The result is that the fuel usage is at about 50% better than a pure petrol car. In our case, the extra cost of our Toyota Auris would be recouped in 2-3 years, plus a smooth and quiet running automatic. And as we always keep our cars for 7 years, the saving on a petrol car is substantial.
The tax benefits are now much reduced as since last year there is road tax to pay.

==========================

really ?

where does that 50% saving come from ?

the battery gets its charge from somewhere - either the engine burning petrol , or a charging point using (not free) electricity .

there IS free charge from overun and braking , but i very much doubt if that counteracts the extra weight being lugged around at all times .

there is no magic around hybrids.

Lootman wrote:

AF62 wrote:Some cities have already restricted, banned, or put emissions charges on petrol and diesel cars - will this continue or accelerate.

Restricted or charged more for, certainly.

But has any major city gone as far as to ban petrol or diesel vehicles?

Bristol proposed a ban on private diesel vehicles during the day, and although they now seem to be backing away from it they haven't made a final decision yet - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-53837491

Lootman wrote:Personally I have no intention of ever driving anything other than a petrol car. If that means I end up driving a 15 year old car in my eighties, then so be it.

If it delivers what you want from a car - range, comfort, speed, reliability, value, whatever - then why worry about the mechanism powering the vehicle?

swill453 wrote:

AF62 wrote:Not that wealthy! A Fiat 124

Nice!



Scott.

Close, but no cigar.

Lootman wrote:Personally I have no intention of ever driving anything other than a petrol car. If that means I end up driving a 15 year old car in my eighties, then so be it.

Far better than driving an 80 year old car when you're 15

If I am still driving when I am 80 I will shoot myself

I will get a taxi to the airport or walk if I have to. But I've too many miles on my clock now to want to think about driving in retirement

AiY

AF62 wrote:

Lootman wrote:

AF62 wrote:Some cities have already restricted, banned, or put emissions charges on petrol and diesel cars - will this continue or accelerate.

Restricted or charged more for, certainly.

But has any major city gone as far as to ban petrol or diesel vehicles?

Bristol proposed a ban on private diesel vehicles during the day, and although they now seem to be backing away from it they haven't made a final decision yet - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-53837491

Lootman wrote:Personally I have no intention of ever driving anything other than a petrol car. If that means I end up driving a 15 year old car in my eighties, then so be it.

If it delivers what you want from a car - range, comfort, speed, reliability, value, whatever - then why worry about the mechanism powering the vehicle?

swill453 wrote:

AF62 wrote:Not that wealthy! A Fiat 124

Nice!



Scott.

Close, but no cigar.

I love grey. But couldn't you afford one with a roof?

AiY

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:

AF62 wrote:

Lootman wrote:Restricted or charged more for, certainly.

But has any major city gone as far as to ban petrol or diesel vehicles?

Bristol proposed a ban on private diesel vehicles during the day, and although they now seem to be backing away from it they haven't made a final decision yet - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-53837491

Lootman wrote:Personally I have no intention of ever driving anything other than a petrol car. If that means I end up driving a 15 year old car in my eighties, then so be it.

If it delivers what you want from a car - range, comfort, speed, reliability, value, whatever - then why worry about the mechanism powering the vehicle?

swill453 wrote:Nice!



Scott.

Close, but no cigar.

I love grey. But couldn't you afford one with a roof?

AiY

The sun always shines on me.

AF62 wrote:

Your front number plate has fallen off!!

Mike4 wrote:

AF62 wrote:Your front number plate has fallen off!!

That's extra along with a roof

Already in the car park in the sin bin

AiY

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:

Mike4 wrote:

AF62 wrote:Your front number plate has fallen off!!

That's extra along with a roof

Already in the car park in the sin bin

Presumably you support this. I do. The US has never had this requirement to my knowledge.

"In the UK it is a legal requirement to display a licence or numberplate on the front of a vehicle. We believe this is an outdated and now unnecessary requirement."

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived ... o%20people.

Lootman wrote:Presumably you support this. I do. The US has never had this requirement to my knowledge.

"In the UK it is a legal requirement to display a licence or numberplate on the front of a vehicle. We believe this is an outdated and now unnecessary requirement."

How will the neighbours know you've just spent £40K on a new car

Isn't it something to do with ANPR and speeding issues?

AiY

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:

Lootman wrote:Presumably you support this. I do. The US has never had this requirement to my knowledge.

"In the UK it is a legal requirement to display a licence or numberplate on the front of a vehicle. We believe this is an outdated and now unnecessary requirement."

How will the neighbours know you've just spent £40K on a new car

Isn't it something to do with ANPR and speeding issues?

AiY

Surely it is more to do with accidents caused by people driving backwards along the M4....

I note that motorcycles are not required to have front number plates. Maybe because they can't be driven backwards.

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:

Lootman wrote:Presumably you support this. I do. The US has never had this requirement to my knowledge.

"In the UK it is a legal requirement to display a licence or numberplate on the front of a vehicle. We believe this is an outdated and now unnecessary requirement."

How will the neighbours know you've just spent £40K on a new car

Isn't it something to do with ANPR and speeding issues?

Speed camera vans can zap either the front or back of the car, and obviously need to see the number plate as proof.

So the chances of front number plates being abolished are zero.

Scott.