BEVs deals and information

JKenH

almillar wrote: »

What an absolute laugh! You do get Android Auto BTW. And you don't need Car Play for voice commands IIRC, that'll work via Bluetooth.

So if something isn’t important to you, you can’t see why it would bother anyone else.

I have built in sat nav in my Merc and Golf and both are useless - years out of date and locally always choose poor routes whereas Google Maps and Apple Maps are both great. With a decent size screen you can get a better idea of what’s going on. I ended up on the M6 toll in my Merc. It’s really handy to have a phone that’s fully integrated and I just can’t understand why so many manufacturers fail on that.

Why would you buy a car to use for several years that’s missing a function that you as an individual find indispensable? Every time you get in it you would be frustrated with it.

almillar

So if something isn’t important to you, you can’t see why it would bother anyone else.

Unless you or your wife haven't been driving for long, I imagine you've both driven many cars without CarPlay. It's just your phone, on a bigger screen, and with plenty of restrictions.


No, for me, AA or CP are not 'deal breakers'. My Kia has both, and I use neither. Again, you can have Android Auto on the Zoe, but not CarPlay. And Zoe's sat nav is 'alright' (TomTom).

ABrass

One of the things I'd struggle with on a Tesla is the lack of Android auto. I can see how car play would be highly desirable for others.

On the Tesla front they're in for a stonking 9 months. The new China factory is just about to start and they've got the Porsche-killer power train to make the S worth it again and the model Y.

Still unlikely to buy one without android Auto though.

joefizz

almillar wrote: »

If 'Natural life' means MOT failures driving around on the roads, no thanks. MOT is a very low standard for a car to pass. With the exception of some daft new electrical rules.

Im confused. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me ;-)


I had an MOT failure once because the back door wouldnt open, I hadnt opened it since the last MOT (same with they unplug the back seatbelts just to plug them in again the following year)



I guess you didnt join up the dots in my comments about no diesel emissions testing here in NI then? A lot of MOT aged english registered 4x4s for sale over here, relatively cheaper than you would expect... wonder why that is?

mmmmikey

ABrass wrote: »

Still unlikely to buy one without android Auto though.

Sounds like I must be the only person who hasn't managed to get this working. Must read the instructions again, I guess

EricMears

JKenH wrote: »

If you do 30,000 miles a year and a small car is okay for you then this type of deal is probably not a bad idea
https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/new-renault-zoe-fully-electric-carsave-36-80kw-dynamique-nav-r110-40kwh-5dr-auto-now-13995-at-new-car-discount-3304716 .

That’s the closest I can get to a car that fits my needs as a runabout. No Apple CarPlay though so that is a deal breaker. Some people might think that’s a stupidly trivial reason but not for me. My wife who is not a confident driver or tech user has used my Golf for a couple of 100 mile trips this week and loved having CarPlay for the navigation apps and for sending and receiving messages hands free en route.

I don’t think Tesla do CarPlay either

The Zoe deal mentioned is dreadful !

Renault battery lease is required as part of this purchase , as an example its £69 a month if you cover 6000 miles per year

£69 per month is £828 per year. If that is divided by 6000 miles it comes to 13.8 pence per mile. Indeed, if you do a bit less than 6000 miles you'd probably still pay the same but cost per mile would be a bit higher or if you do a bit more than 6000 miles there would probably be a surcharge on the lease.

But that doesn't even include the cost of buying electricity ! If by some miracle you managed to get 5 miles per kWh and could get all the charge you needed at 5 pence per unit that would add another penny per mile. More likely that (like me) you'd be paying 8ppu and only getting 4mpu so total cost per mile for battery lease & energy would be 16p !

By comparison, my 2 litre diesel costs 10p/mile on a long run and still only 15ppm on local trips.

A recommendation to consider this deal has no place on a money saving forum !

EricMears

JKenH wrote: »

I have built in sat nav in my Merc and Golf and both are useless - years out of date and locally always choose poor routes whereas Google Maps and Apple Maps are both great.

I know nothing about Mercedes satnavs but can well believe that (like my Leaf) the cost of updating the mapping data is exorbitant.

However, I used to run a VW e-Up! and that had free map updates; hard to believe that isn't also offered on the Golf.

almillar

Im confused. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me ;-)

Disagreeing, I'm afraid. You're saying cars 'live' longer in the US because they're not 'killed' by failing an MOT. I say if a car fails an MOT it's unsafe and shouldn't be on the road. That's not the problem, the cost of repairing cars in the UK (relative to buying another) is the problem. Many people won't spend £500 repairing a £500 car as they think it's a false economy, eveon though it's often not. 'The MOT' is not to blame, and is a good thing IMO.

I guess you didnt join up the dots in my comments about no diesel emissions testing here in NI then? A lot of MOT aged english registered 4x4s for sale over here, relatively cheaper than you would expect... wonder why that is?

Why should I need to join up dots, just spell it out! We should be testing diesel emmissions.

Still unlikely to buy one without android Auto though.

I've got AA, and I still just use my phone in a cradle. When it goes wireless I'll consider it. The Tesla interface is far beyond what AA and CarPlay offer. It's not a 'deal breaker' in my book, and I'm a geek!

By comparison, my 2 litre diesel costs 10p/mile on a long run and still only 15ppm on local trips.

A recommendation to consider this deal has no place on a money saving forum !

Fair enough, but please remember that the battery rental includes a couple of benefits that would have a cost otherwise - a warranty, as mentioned above, breakdown recovery (yes, including if you run out of charge). Take the cost of RAC membership for your diesel out of that £828.

joefizz

almillar wrote: »

Disagreeing, I'm afraid. You're saying cars 'live' longer in the US because they're not 'killed' by failing an MOT. I say if a car fails an MOT it's unsafe and shouldn't be on the road. That's not the problem, the cost of repairing cars in the UK (relative to buying another) is the problem. Many people won't spend £500 repairing a £500 car as they think it's a false economy, eveon though it's often not. 'The MOT' is not to blame, and is a good thing IMO.

But you are agreeing with my fundamental point about certain MOT failures not being real failures or certain MOT failures being made up stuff...
Ive been through more MOTs than years Ive been alive and know that pretty much every new test and regulation is a result of the end of someones life. Invariably that person could have been stupid, like the person who used a rag stuffed in their fuel tank instead of a 5 quid petrol cap, crashed the car just after MOT, car overturned, fuel caught on fire and you can imagine the rest. Thats why they now test for having a proper filler cap. Now you and I might think thats a ridiculous rule but its there for a reason.

You ignored my comment about failing MOT because one of the rear doors wouldnt open. Hardly unroadworthy, particularly as over the previous year I hadnt noticed the door wouldnt open because I hadnt needed to open it.
Also my comment about the airbag warning light, now an MOT failure and for most cars would be off the road. They dont actually test that the airbags would work (not guaranteed past 10 years) as they sort of cant.



As is the time my car passed the brake test, got up on the ramp and half way through the suspension test brake fluid started peeing out at a furious rate (brake pipe had let go).
The MOT tester made me sign a form to say how dangerous it was and that they didnt recommend I drive it home. I couldnt believe they would make me sign a form when I'd just watched pretty much all the brake fluid get dumped. He just said 'mate, youd be surprised how stupid people are'. Tow truck home, brake pipe fitted and back for retest within a day.
I appreciate that for a lot of folk that might have been the end of the road and whilst Ive failed a number of MOTs that was the first time in over 30 years that it was for something that under the new classification would be classified as 'Dangerous', every other MOT failure Ive had Ive been able to drive home or drive to somewhere to fix.



My argument is that a subset of MOT failures are unsafe and shouldnt be on the road and that as you again repeat the scrappage is entirely for economic reasons and again as you have reiterated my point that those economic reasons are down to the cost of parts and replacements, which is entirely down to the manufacturers and in their best interests to make it so expensive to repair a car when they can lease you a pcp car cheaper.
From the governments own stats about 20% of MOT failures are due to lighting and signalling, unsafe in the wrong conditions but not exactly seat falling through the floor due to rust. 10% due to tires etc.
My old car never passed the headlamp beam aim when it was new....


Again to give you a concrete real world example, bought a new dell computer last week, set it up over the weekend and for the first time I noticed it came with a user service manual telling you how to replace every component in it. Soon most white goods should provide the same by law, which again goes back to the point I made about not designing for obsolescence and ensuring that full life cycle is part of the design and implementation process. Thats not in the car manufacturers best interest.


Most people wont spend 500 quid repairing a 500 quid car because they can get a brand new one for 199 a month with zero down (but thats disappearing fast). They can then go shiny shiny and post about it on instagram ;-)


That 500 quid repair could be welding the floor pan, fixing broken suspension, replacing the brake system which are all unsafe criteria but it might be a fouled up dpf, clogged injector, broken TPS or any number of things that could be fixed easily and cheaply if the political will was there to create legislation that these things have to be made easily repairable.
A mate had his car forced off the road because they wanted over a grand for a TPS, which is nothing more than a glorified potentiometer. Because they are sealed units the manufacturers can charge what they like or you wait to get one from a scrapyard which may be no better than the one you have. If it was like my new dell or soon to be washing machines that part would have screw fittings and you could replace the 2 quid pot or the 2 quid microswitch or just give it a good clean out with blown air and contact cleaner.


The definition of a major mot defect (fail straight away) 'It may affect the vehicles safety, put other road users at risk or have an impact on the environment'
Apparently having a door that doesnt open affects the vehicles safety because people in the back may not be able to get out in the event of a crash. 'What about the child locks then' says I....
As for the impact on the environment.... see below...

almillar wrote: »

Why should I need to join up dots, just spell it out! We should be testing diesel emmissions.

I dont disagree but if you want a cheap diesel, go to England and buy an MOT emissions failure, bring it back here and get it MOT'd. Have a look on autotrader for NI ads for 3-4 year old diesels. Awful lot of english reg or cars with dealer show plates covering up the reg.
You can check a cars mot history online (GB only).
A fair proportion of diesel MOT failures due to emissions are down to them not being driven the way a diesel should (low miles - cough, pcp, cough, not long runs etc etc.) Injector cleaner and a good long burn up the motorway at high revs could sort it out. Last time my diesel started spluttering (hadnt used it for more than 20 miles in a while) went into the local motor factors, asked for injector cleaner and the first words out of their mouth was a supermarket diesel mention. Well known for causing injector problems in short runs etc. Then I remembered Id been down that way 2 days previous and filled up...
...so facing a 1-2 grand bill for replacing injectors etc (which may be the case but in a lot of cases its a 10 quid bottle of cleaner and burn up the motorway).



So no, in simple terms failing the MOT doesnt always mean a car is unsafe, 20 years ago, yes I would agree with you.

Martyn1981

I'm a bit lost now too Joe.

You started off arguing that BEV's were not cleaner if they displaced a roadworthy ICE, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that happening.

Plus the penetration of BEV's is too small, at just a few percent of new cars, which themselves are only about 5-10% of the whole fleet.

You suggest that cars last 6-7yrs and clock up only 50k miles, but the real figures appear to be twice that (figures you've mentioned you would be happy with).

BEV's have the potential to last far, far longer than ICE's, which would seem to run counter with your main position, wishing (and I agree with you on this) that cars lasted longer.

Unless you can show that 6-7yr old roadworthy ICE's are being scrapped to allow new BEV's to enter the market (and that's the only/main way in for them), then I really don't follow what you are saying, and I am trying, honest.