Is range on EV reason to return under "short term right to reject" of Consumer Rights Act?

Aylesbury_Duck

rndb2023 said:

Having given this some further thought, there is lies one of the issues of manufacturers selling/ adervtising/ marketing of  EVs compared to ICE vehicles and how because of this consumers (like myself) feel mis sold.
An ICE car is never marketing as 'will do this many miles on tank full of fuel'. They only ever put the 3 different mpg figures and then in the small print somewhere you can find out number of litres in tank. Never once have I seen an ICE car sold as 'will do this many miles etc'.
I think nearly all EVs have there maximum range in their marketing material so there needs to be an assumption that you will be able to achieve this and that the car should register that it is achievable on a full charge. In my case, the car never has achieved or shown the maximum quoted range on full charge. So it does not match 'as advertised' 

That's a fair summary of distinctly different approaches to marketing, and in the case of EVs, where range is probably a critical factor in the purchasing decision, it's somewhat unhelpful, but no more so than the mpg figures given for ICE cars.  I can see why they've adopted it, though.  Firstly, mpg has some "currency", because almost everyone understands that 50mpg is "good", and 25mpg is "bad", in a very crude way.  It's already odd that mpg (which tells you the range for a given volume of fuel) is used to express consumption rather than gpm (which would be an actual measure of consumption per given unit of distance), because a higher mpg figure demonstrates lower consumption, and vice versa.  I have absolutely no idea what miles per kWh could or should look like because it's not part of my everyday lived experience, so far better to express it in estimated total range terms.  Secondly, with range-anxiety being a purchasing influence, as technology improves and ranges extend, it makes sense to use the range in the marketing.

BUT... I think where your problem lies is that ultimately, they are the same thing: the general efficiency of the engine in perfect controlled conditions.  The same ambiguity, assumptions and controlled-environment stuff sits in both calculations.  Fundamentally, I don't think there's any difference between an ICE customer not being able to reach the marketing figure of 55mpg and an ICE customer not getting the 300 mile stated range.

born_again

rndb2023 said:

Having given this some further thought, there is lies one of the issues of manufacturers selling/ adervtising/ marketing of  EVs compared to ICE vehicles and how because of this consumers (like myself) feel mis sold.
An ICE car is never marketing as 'will do this many miles on tank full of fuel'. They only ever put the 3 different mpg figures and then in the small print somewhere you can find out number of litres in tank. Never once have I seen an ICE car sold as 'will do this many miles etc'.
I think nearly all EVs have there maximum range in their marketing material so there needs to be an assumption that you will be able to achieve this and that the car should register that it is achievable on a full charge. In my case, the car never has achieved or shown the maximum quoted range on full charge. So it does not match 'as advertised' 

WLTP is there for comparison purposes only.

As clearly spelled out in this post which links to AUDI page.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80902247/#Comment_80902247

https://ev-database.org/uk/car/1770/Audi-Q8-e-tron-55-quattro

Is it a reason to return? 
You can ask the dealer if you can reject on that basis. But think they will point out the above link.

https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/motoring-fuel-consumption-emissions-and-range-figures.html

Reality says, never trust a word that comes out of a sales persons mouth.

It would only be the same if you drove a petrol/diesel & drove it like you stole it & got no where near the quoted MPG.

eskbanker

Aylesbury_Duck said:
It's already odd that mpg (which tells you the range for a given volume of fuel) is used to express consumption rather than gpm (which would be an actual measure of consumption per given unit of distance), because a higher mpg figure demonstrates lower consumption, and vice versa.

Even odder when you consider the number of years since it's actually been possible to buy fuel by the 'g'!

born_again

eskbanker said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:
It's already odd that mpg (which tells you the range for a given volume of fuel) is used to express consumption rather than gpm (which would be an actual measure of consumption per given unit of distance), because a higher mpg figure demonstrates lower consumption, and vice versa.

Even odder when you consider the number of years since it's actually been possible to buy fuel by the 'g'!

But us oldies still use MPG. Well I did. Now it's Miles/kWh 🤣

Aylesbury_Duck

born_again said:

eskbanker said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:
It's already odd that mpg (which tells you the range for a given volume of fuel) is used to express consumption rather than gpm (which would be an actual measure of consumption per given unit of distance), because a higher mpg figure demonstrates lower consumption, and vice versa.

Even odder when you consider the number of years since it's actually been possible to buy fuel by the 'g'!

But us oldies still use MPG. Well I did. Now it's Miles/kWh 🤣

At some point in the distant future, our descendents will be working with a very British quirky measure like 'furlongs per neutron', having stubbornly refused to modernise part of our lives for no good reason.

electriccactus

Aylesbury_Duck said:

rndb2023 said:

Having given this some further thought, there is lies one of the issues of manufacturers selling/ adervtising/ marketing of  EVs compared to ICE vehicles and how because of this consumers (like myself) feel mis sold.
An ICE car is never marketing as 'will do this many miles on tank full of fuel'. They only ever put the 3 different mpg figures and then in the small print somewhere you can find out number of litres in tank. Never once have I seen an ICE car sold as 'will do this many miles etc'.
I think nearly all EVs have there maximum range in their marketing material so there needs to be an assumption that you will be able to achieve this and that the car should register that it is achievable on a full charge. In my case, the car never has achieved or shown the maximum quoted range on full charge. So it does not match 'as advertised' 

That's a fair summary of distinctly different approaches to marketing, and in the case of EVs, where range is probably a critical factor in the purchasing decision, it's somewhat unhelpful, but no more so than the mpg figures given for ICE cars.  I can see why they've adopted it, though.  Firstly, mpg has some "currency", because almost everyone understands that 50mpg is "good", and 25mpg is "bad", in a very crude way.  It's already odd that mpg (which tells you the range for a given volume of fuel) is used to express consumption rather than gpm (which would be an actual measure of consumption per given unit of distance), because a higher mpg figure demonstrates lower consumption, and vice versa.  I have absolutely no idea what miles per kWh could or should look like because it's not part of my everyday lived experience, so far better to express it in estimated total range terms.  Secondly, with range-anxiety being a purchasing influence, as technology improves and ranges extend, it makes sense to use the range in the marketing.

BUT... I think where your problem lies is that ultimately, they are the same thing: the general efficiency of the engine in perfect controlled conditions.  The same ambiguity, assumptions and controlled-environment stuff sits in both calculations.  Fundamentally, I don't think there's any difference between an ICE customer not being able to reach the marketing figure of 55mpg and an ICE customer not getting the 300 mile stated range.

I'd say that mpkWh is easy enough to understand.  Your electricity bill has a charge per kWh so you should be used to it as a unit of cost.

MPG makes little sense as fuel isn't charged per gallon and to be honest, it's such a large measurement that it probably only makes sense in places like the US where day to day travel is often over what we would consider to be quite substantial distances.  Miles Per Litre would probably be a more useful metric in the UK and would be more comparable to the miles per kWh of electric cars.

prowla

It's an Audi, so it is going to be driven hard.

electriccactus

prowla said:

It's an Audi, so it is going to be driven hard.

Yeah, cutting in front of people at the last minute or zipping out from the left lane whilst merging on a slip road is probably "hard driving."

rndb2023

Not that anyone may be wondering but thought I'd update that Audi have issued a full refund for the vehicle!

Grumpy_chap

rndb2023 said:

Not that anyone may be wondering but thought I'd update that Audi have issued a full refund for the vehicle!

Thank you for updating.

Did AUDI simply process a "goodwill refund" or did they accept any liability and what?  It will help the strength of the hive mind the more you can share.