Car buyers should have 'long, hard think' about diesel

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are overlooking or not knowing one thing. Profit doesn't all come directly from the sale of a new car, it also comes from the sale of parts for servicing, maintenance of the vehicle. As you keep pointing out, an EV will require less maintenance and fewer parts so they have lost a source of profit and the profit will have to be made at the point of sale of the new car. This will also impact the profits of dealerships as the number of ICE cars decreases.
So ICE cars sales model is like inkjet printers or water filter jugs, selling the car with lower profit to get you into the door, then more profit is made on maintenance and servicing?

As a consumer, I am happy to contribute as little as possible towards dealership profits. They are just a middleman pushing up costs.
I would also be glad to have less maintenance requirements on my cars, spend less time looking after the car, more time actually using the car.

If that means cars will be slightly more expensive, then so be it. You'll still spend less over your ownership thanks to less time and money spent on maintenance.
 
So ICE cars sales model is like inkjet printers or water filter jugs, selling the car with lower profit to get you into the door, then more profit is made on maintenance and servicing?

As a consumer, I am happy to contribute as little as possible towards dealership profits. They are just a middleman pushing up costs.
I would also be glad to have less maintenance requirements on my cars, spend less time looking after the car, more time actually using the car.

If that means cars will be slightly more expensive, then so be it. You'll still spend less over your ownership thanks to less time and money spent on maintenance.
But it is still the high initial cost to get you into a vehicle in the first place. A car being off the road for a couple of hours a year for a service is hardly anything to worry about. I would rather a car was checked over once a year. Not everyone is capable of taking care of their own cars and could end up driving around with defective suspension, steering, or tyres and be totally oblivious.
If you are buying a new car, you are going to be buying from a dealership, you are going to be paying costs to a middleman. Order online, you won't be able to negotiate a discount so not only will you be paying full price, you will still be paying middleman costs.
 
But it is still the high initial cost to get you into a vehicle in the first place. A car being off the road for a couple of hours a year for a service is hardly anything to worry about. I would rather a car was checked over once a year. Not everyone is capable of taking care of their own cars and could end up driving around with defective suspension, steering, or tyres and be totally oblivious.
If you are buying a new car, you are going to be buying from a dealership, you are going to be paying costs to a middleman. Order online, you won't be able to negotiate a discount so not only will you be paying full price, you will still be paying middleman costs.
Your prediction of higher initial cost from less maintenance profit is all hugely speculative. Have you seen the cost of e-Golf compared to similarly spec'd Golf's? I wonder how VW are managing this deficit.

If there isn't a dealership network, there won't be anyone to take a cut ;)
 
Your prediction of higher initial cost from less maintenance profit is all hugely speculative. Have you seen the cost of e-Golf compared to similarly spec'd Golf's? I wonder how VW are managing this deficit.

If there isn't a dealership network, there won't be anyone to take a cut ;)
e Golf has the same service intervals as a petrol or diesel Golf. VW could still be making a loss on the sale of each e Golf but it is hidden by the profits made on other cars.
Is there a manufacturer that doesn't have some kind of dealership network? Just because Tesla insist they don't have dealerships, it is only because they don't wish to call it a dealership. But at the end of the day, their Stores or whatever they wish to call them, they are still dealerships and their existence is still factored into the price you pay for the car whether it is bought from the store or ordered online.
 
Normally, car dealerships are a different entity from manufacturers, it is in their best interest to keep you coming back to them, for issues, maintenance or new car. Dealership's interest is different from manufacturer's, latter wishes you to enjoy their car and have as little maintenance issues as possible. So having the manufacturer directly talk to the customers, have the same user experience, same company policy at every service location is better than having a middleman getting in the way of your warranty claims.

I was cold called a few days ago by VW/Skoda main dealer, telling me major service and MOT are due, whether I wanted to book it in. The car isn't due service as last year I've only done 7k miles, I've got MOT booked elsewhere. I answered "No, thanks" and the next question was "Are you going elsewhere for servicing?" Talk about desperate

Speaking of e-Golf, here's a hot deal: https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/vo...00-miles-per-annum-at-whatcar-leasing-3287248
 
Normally, car dealerships are a different entity from manufacturers, it is in their best interest to keep you coming back to them, for issues, maintenance or new car. Dealership's interest is different from manufacturer's, latter wishes you to enjoy their car and have as little maintenance issues as possible. So having the manufacturer directly talk to the customers, have the same user experience, same company policy at every service location is better than having a middleman getting in the way of your warranty claims.

I was cold called a few days ago by VW/Skoda main dealer, telling me major service and MOT are due, whether I wanted to book it in. The car isn't due service as last year I've only done 7k miles, I've got MOT booked elsewhere. I answered "No, thanks" and the next question was "Are you going elsewhere for servicing?" Talk about desperate
A dealership would rather you didn't have any issues either. Both the dealership and the manufacturer rely on you having a good trouble free experience with owning your car so that you return to them for your next car as well as getting your recommendation to others.
Even if a manufacturer owns service locations, they are still dealerships and as such, still a middleman.
Services are based on interval and mileage. If your service intervals are 12 months apart, your car is due a service regardless of how few miles you have done. You could have only done 700miles since last year, it is still due a service. The service would have been due sooner if you had exceeded the annual mileage allowed between service. So no the dealer doesn't sound desperate at all.
 
Axa insurance are finding high performance electric cars are 40% more likely to be involved in an accident than an ICE high performance car. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/2...ic-cars-have-higher-accident-rates-finds-axa/
However in America an EV is more likely to be in an accident with cyclists and pedestrians.

Since absolutely everything you post is Anti EV can you give any suggestions as to the way forward as you just seem to be posting negatively all the time.
 
Since absolutely everything you post is Anti EV can you give any suggestions as to the way forward as you just seem to be posting negatively all the time.

Surely you read the post telling the EV fella about how interval is just as important as mileage?
 
Axa insurance are finding high performance electric cars are 40% more likely to be involved in an accident than an ICE high performance car. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/2...ic-cars-have-higher-accident-rates-finds-axa/
However in America an EV is more likely to be in an accident with cyclists and pedestrians.

But overall, about the same accident rates as ICE cars.

Probably more down to the mindset of people buying performance cars, and driving them like nobs. As opposed to it being EV.

You also missed "Zahnd is quick to point out that the data is sparse so far and may not be statistically relevant due to the small number of electric cars on the road. For instance, she notes that her company’s claims experience in Europe does not match that of American insurers who say electric cars are much more likely to be in accidents involving pedestrians or cyclists "
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since absolutely everything you post is Anti EV can you give any suggestions as to the way forward as you just seem to be posting negatively all the time.
How Is that anti EV?
 
You also missed "Zahnd is quick to point out that the data is sparse so far and may not be statistically relevant due to the small number of electric cars on the road. For instance, she notes that her company’s claims experience in Europe does not match that of American insurers who say electric cars are much more likely to be in accidents involving pedestrians or cyclists "

I didn't miss anything. That is why I wrote " they are finding" and not "they have found". I also mentioned the American insurers findings.
You really do need to learn to read.
 
So............posting that EV's 'may be more likely' to be involved in accidents...........................

Forget it - not worth debating with someone who can't see his own prejudices!
If you can manage to remove your head from your backside and actually read this thread, it has already been mentioned that Ev's are generally more expensive to insure than ice cars. If insurance companies continue to find EV are a higher risk for certain reasons, then they are likely to add an extra loading on insurance policies in the future. By pointing out what insurance companies are finding out now and possibly influence future insurance prices, can help people decide which EV they may wish to go for.
 
Surely you read the post telling the EV fella about how interval is just as important as mileage?
My Skoda has service interval of 2 years, 18k miles. As have been keenly pointed out by our pro-ICE crowd, that oil change isn't yearly.
But Neil have deliberately ignored the question "are you going elsewhere" as reason for said desperation. This kind of selectiveness is in most of his posts.

it has already been mentioned that Ev's are generally more expensive to insure than ice cars. If insurance companies continue to find EV are a higher risk for certain reasons, then they are likely to add an extra loading on insurance policies in the future. By pointing out what insurance companies are finding out now and possibly influence future insurance prices, can help people decide which EV they may wish to go for.
Are you sure this IF is correct?

If I read your post correct, you said "high performance EV's". The source also pointed out datapoints are too few, and it is not statistically relevant. Then, you have morphed that into "EV are a higher risk".
 
I didn't miss anything. That is why I wrote " they are finding" and not "they have found". I also mentioned the American insurers findings.
You really do need to learn to read.

I can read thanks.

You said "However in America an EV is more likely to be in an accident with cyclists and pedestrians." You didn't qualify this with any caveat whatsoever.

Selectively quoting the sentence immediately following the point that it is not necessarily statistically relevant. And that the data in Europe does *not* match that in America. Implying it is not likely to be an issue with EVs even if it is statistically relevant, but may be a combination of EV and American driving style. Or it might just be a blip as we don't have enough data.

And ignored the "But overall, about the same accident rates as ICE cars." So it's only high performance cars, probably because of the different torque profiles.
 
I can read thanks.

You said "However in America an EV is more likely to be in an accident with cyclists and pedestrians." You didn't qualify this with any caveat whatsoever.

Selectively quoting the sentence immediately following the point that it is not necessarily statistically relevant. And that the data in Europe does *not* match that in America. Implying it is not likely to be an issue with EVs even if it is statistically relevant, but may be a combination of EV and American driving style. Or it might just be a blip as we don't have enough data.

And ignored the "But overall, about the same accident rates as ICE cars." So it's only high performance cars, probably because of the different torque profiles.
I am sorry that everything has to be spelt out for you. Does mummy still wipe your backside for you?
 
My Skoda has service interval of 2 years, 18k miles. As have been keenly pointed out by our pro-ICE crowd, that oil change isn't yearly.
But Neil have deliberately ignored the question "are you going elsewhere" as reason for said desperation. This kind of selectiveness is in most of his posts.

You said the dealer contacted you to say your car was due a major service. You said because of the low mileage you have done this past year, you were only going to have the car MoT'd and have it done elsewhere. What is wrong with them asking if you are also having the car serviced elsewhere?
Reminding you that your car is due a service and MOT is hardly desperation. You seriously need to get a grip. Your life just be full of so much paranoia.
 
I am sorry that everything has to be spelt out for you. Does mummy still wipe your backside for you?
You said the dealer contacted you to say your car was due a major service. You said because of the low mileage you have done this past year, you were only going to have the car MoT'd and have it done elsewhere. What is wrong with them asking if you are also having the car serviced elsewhere?
Reminding you that your car is due a service and MOT is hardly desperation. You seriously need to get a grip. Your life just be full of so much paranoia.
Again, you have resulted to insults when you cannot make a coherent side of argument.

For your information, no, service was not due, it was done last year. They phoned me 1 year later telling me my service was due when it was in fact not due. In combination with how quickly the question "are you going elsewhere" was asked, showed desperation.


And good luck with getting a test drive, popping somewhere to have something looked at, servicing, etc........
Test drive can be done at shopping centre, where they base their sales. Or from other passionate owners.
To have something looked at/servicing can be done by mobile mechanic. The car should be able to self-diagnose before mechanic even arrives. If not car specific (eg. brake, suspension, steering, bodywork, etc) you can also go to any independent garage.
 
Again, you have resulted to insults when you cannot make a coherent side of argument.

For your information, no, service was not due, it was done last year. They phoned me 1 year later telling me my service was due when it was in fact not due. In combination with how quickly the question "are you going elsewhere" was asked, showed desperation.
Some vehicles require an annual "inspection" if not a full service. I think it's quite reasonable of the dealer to ask if you are going elsewhere, after all if you are they would want to know why in case they need to put something right with their own business - all quite normal and understandable



Test drive can be done at shopping centre, where they base their sales. Or from other passionate owners.
To have something looked at/servicing can be done by mobile mechanic. The car should be able to self-diagnose before mechanic even arrives. If not car specific (eg. brake, suspension, steering, bodywork, etc) you can also go to any independent garage.
Does the warranty not specify that the vehicle must be serviced by a competent and qualified person, that might be difficult to prove if something went wrong and needed specialist knowledge to repair under warranty. How do independant dealers get notified of specific model revisions to servicing requirements. For instance Ford changed the length of time between cam belt changes and notified their autorised dealers accordingly, independents if lucky heard of it through the grapevine, some may not have so you would run the risk of premature belt failure by trying to save a few quid using a non-authorised dealer. I think I also read that the "electrics" on EV require a highly specialized and trained mechanic to do work on them, how would you know that your "mobile" mechanic was qualified and/or insured to do the work required, again saving a few quid and hoping it all turns out ok, not a position I would adopt but hey ho it's your car/life.
 
Last edited:
Again, you have resulted to insults when you cannot make a coherent side of argument.

For your information, no, service was not due, it was done last year. They phoned me 1 year later telling me my service was due when it was in fact not due. In combination with how quickly the question "are you going elsewhere" was asked, showed desperation.
It was a coherent argument. What I posted was self evident. But for some reason he wants to be spoon fed.
Before you bitch, moan and cry, try giving the full facts.
Try reading your post.
I was cold called a few days ago by VW/Skoda main dealer, telling me major service and MOT are due, whether I wanted to book it in. The car isn't due service as last year I've only done 7k miles, I've got MOT booked elsewhere. I answered "No, thanks" and the next question was "Are you going elsewhere for servicing?" Talk about desperate

Nowhere in your post did you state that your car was between service intervals or what the intervals were. You just said the car wasn't due a service since you had it serviced last year and because it has only done 7k miles since.

So this begs the question, were they trying to get you to service a car between intervals? In which case they were really trying it on by stating it was due a major service instead of an interim service.
Or you are just desperately trying to wriggle out of the fact that your car is In fact due a service and you were wrong in the assumption that the low mileage negated the need for a service.
 
Some vehicles require an annual "inspection" if not a full service. I think it's quite reasonable of the dealer to ask if you are going elsewhere, after all if you are they would want to know why in case they need to put something right with their own business - all quite normal and understandable
First, inspection would be different to "major service". They asked if I want to book in major service.
Second, it's not really reasonable to cold call someone, when get a negative, imminently ask whether going elsewhere. Could have offered to call back after I have had some thought. I don't appreciate any cold-calling, the polite thing to do is to send a text to remind you MOT and service is due.

At any rate, MOT passed no problem last Friday at my usual tyre place for just £22.50. Booked online, no middleman destroying their soul cold calling people required.

Does the warranty not specify that the vehicle must be serviced by a competent and qualified person, that might be difficult to prove if something went wrong and needed specialist knowledge to repair under warranty. How do independant dealers get notified of specific model revisions to servicing requirements. For instance Ford changed the length of time between cam belt changes and notified their autorised dealers accordingly, independents if lucky heard of it through the grapevine, some may not have so you would run the risk of premature belt failure by trying to save a few quid using a non-authorised dealer. I think I also read that the "electrics" on EV require a highly specialized and trained mechanic to do work on them, how would you know that your "mobile" mechanic was qualified and/or insured to do the work required, again saving a few quid and hoping it all turns out ok, not a position I would adopt but hey ho it's your car/life.
Is it not industry standard to honour warranty as long as all service checklists were done by VAT registered trades person and genuine parts were fitted? So you would still not know of any late changes in this instance.

You are right, high voltage components do require specialised trained mechanics. This is why manufacturer should a team of mobile mechanics that can come to you for specialised work. (eg. Tesla rangers)

It was a coherent argument. What I posted was self evident. But for some reason he wants to be spoon fed.
Before you bitch, moan and cry, try giving the full facts.
Try reading your post.


Nowhere in your post did you state that your car was between service intervals or what the intervals were. You just said the car wasn't due a service since you had it serviced last year and because it has only done 7k miles since.

So this begs the question, were they trying to get you to service a car between intervals? In which case they were really trying it on by stating it was due a major service instead of an interim service.
Or you are just desperately trying to wriggle out of the fact that your car is In fact due a service and you were wrong in the assumption that the low mileage negated the need for a service.
You chose to reply without knowing all the facts, making multiple assumptions to arrive at conclusion convenient to you, and selectively ignoring parts inconvenient to you.
Now are you accusing me of lying? How low can you go?
 
Last edited:
You are right, high voltage components do require specialised trained mechanics. This is why manufacturer should a team of mobile mechanics that can come to you for specialised work. (eg. Tesla rangers)


You chose to reply without knowing all the facts, making multiple assumptions to arrive at conclusion convenient to you, and selectively ignoring parts inconvenient to you.
Now are you accusing me of lying? How low can you go?
Many manufacturers have had a mobile mechanic service for decades. Dealers also run a pick up and drop off service, so servicing is of no inconvenience.
You had your little hissy fit without giving the full details. Plus with your recent track record on being able to decide on your opinion on something and then claim it is me, yes i will call you a liar and i didn't even have to go low to do it. The blame lies firmly at your door.
 
You had your little hissy fit without giving the full details. Plus with your recent track record on being able to decide on your opinion on something and then claim it is me, yes i will call you a liar and i didn't even have to go low to do it. The blame lies firmly at your door.
I'm sorry, what is this you are referring to? Is it another case of "I've posted before" post followed by "here are the evidences" post?

Not the regen braking again is it? If it is, I won't deify you with a response, I've said enough. You'll have to on your inability to read. Hopefully, one day, you'll learn you don't have to reply to everything, and it is bad to make assumptions.

But no, I'm not lying. I don't do that, I have integrity.
 
But no, I'm not lying. I just can't remember what I have posted, I will like other people's posts, even though the content contradicts my own and then for good measure contradict both their post and my original post .
**Mod Edit**
Play nice!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is it not industry standard to honour warranty as long as all service checklists were done by VAT registered trades person and genuine parts were fitted? So you would still not know of any late changes in this instance.
I suppose it would depend if the VAT registered person was deemed "competent", which is how I believe warranties are worded. I think you'd have a real poblem getting ANY manufacturer to honour a warranty claim if ANY repairs were done by a non franchised person/dealership.

As an example, friend of mine bought a Network Q car had it regularly serviced by the supplying dealer, it went bang, AA dragged it into a different Network Q dealer, they (the new dealer) have been fighting to get it taken back to supplying Network Q dealer to do the required warranty work as they (the new dealer) dont want to touch it. End result is my friend has been without her car for a week and they (the new dealer) havent even looked at it yet. Imagine the grief if she'd had it serviced by a mobile mechanic who wasnt franchised etc
 
Last edited:
I suppose it would depend if the VAT registered person was deemed "competent", which is how I believe warranties are worded. I think you'd have a real poblem getting ANY manufacturer to honour a warranty claim if ANY repairs were done by a non franchised person/dealership.

As an example, friend of mine bought a Network Q car had it regularly serviced by the supplying dealer, it went bang, AA dragged it into a different Network Q dealer, they (the new dealer) have been fighting to get it taken back to supplying Network Q dealer to do the required warranty work as they (the new dealer) dont want to touch it. End result is my friend has been without her car for a week and they (the new dealer) havent even looked at it yet. Imagine the grief if she'd had it serviced by a mobile mechanic who wasnt franchised etc
https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/new-car-warranty-servicing/

The short answer is that, for warranty purposes, you don’t have to have your car serviced by a franchised dealership. However, that may affect your car finance agreement. Let’s explore those two points in more detail.

I thought one of the advantages of Network Q was exactly that, it was a network and it didn't matter where you went? Maybe not
 
Last edited:
https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/new-car-warranty-servicing/



I thought one of the advantages of Network Q was exactly that, it was a network and it didn't matter where you went? Maybe not
My guess is that there are set times dictated by Network Q how long things take to fix, this was the case when my mate ran a garage (Austin dealership), so if it took longer to fix the garage only got the standard hours at the standard rate. Now, lets assume the repair exceeds standard time because of some unforeseen issue, the new dealer is out of pocket of course, so that's probably why they don't want to do it, I also thought the repairs could be done by any Network Q garage and my friend thinks they are pulling a fast one.
 
If you can manage to remove your head from your backside and actually read this thread, it has already been mentioned that Ev's are generally more expensive to insure than ice cars. If insurance companies continue to find EV are a higher risk for certain reasons, then they are likely to add an extra loading on insurance policies in the future. By pointing out what insurance companies are finding out now and possibly influence future insurance prices, can help people decide which EV they may wish to go for.

Your link won't help people do that though, it's got no info on the models affected and as a sample the data's insignificant. You're making a huge leap from some initial data findings and drawing conclusions that even AXA hasn't arrived at.

She adds the jury is still out on how crash data will affect the cost of insuring electric versus standard vehicles because insurance rates take into account the driver’s history as well as the make and model of the car being insured. “If I look around Switzerland there are lots of insurers that even give discounts for electric autos because one would like to promote electric cars,” she says.

I also thought the repairs could be done by any Network Q garage and my friend thinks they are pulling a fast one.
That would be my guess as well. I'd have thought if it's a network issue it would have been easy enough for them to just do an internal cost transfer but maybe not
 
Last edited:
Your link won't help people do that though, it's got no info on the models affected and as a sample the data's insignificant. You're making a huge leap from some initial data findings and drawing conclusions that even AXA hasn't arrived at.
It says performance models. I think it will be fairly obvious if the vehicle is a performance model or not.
It's no different to back in the 80's, any car with a turbo was classed as a performance model and an insurance group to suit. If AXA weren't starting to form some conclusions, why would they feel the need to mention it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dod
It says performance models. I think it will be fairly obvious if the vehicle is a performance model or not.
It's no different to back in the 80's, any car with a turbo was classed as a performance model and an insurance group to suit. If AXA weren't starting to form some conclusions, why would they feel the need to mention it?

It's a thing called 'research' - something all companies do.

You still haven't answered my previous main question:

can you give any suggestions as to the way forward as you just seem to be posting negatively all the time.

So, are you suggesting EV is 'dead in the water' and we should stick with fossil fuel burning - lets hear you ideas rather that just 'slagging EV'!
 
It's a thing called 'research' - something all companies do.

You still haven't answered my previous main question:

can you give any suggestions as to the way forward as you just seem to be posting negatively all the time.

So, are you suggesting EV is 'dead in the water' and we should stick with fossil fuel burning - lets hear you ideas rather that just 'slagging EV'!

just because it is research and all companies do it, that doesn't mean to say they need to make an announcement about it. The only reason to do so, would be that it is showing signs of heading in a certain direction. A direction that could lead to higher premiums for certain vehicles.
As you are accusing me of being anti EV for posting the link, the link must also be anti EV. Yet the site is pro EV, they are doing the same as me, forwarding people that certain EV could see higher insurance premiums if insurance companies see them as a higher risk.

I answered your question the first time you asked it when you joined the thread, I am not anti EV and not slating them, I have just been correcting some statements.
 
Titled: The future of legacy car manufacturers.
https://techau.com.au/the-future-of-legacy-car-manufacturers/
As for the other legacy car makers well… it’d help if they could at the very least fully commit to going all-electric for all their models by a certain date. Currently most of them – at best – offer a date for “electrification” (read mostly hybrids). While hybrids aren’t bad per say, it’s also clear this isn’t what the future will be and that they’re an intermediate stepping stone technology that has largely already passed.

No, the future of legacy manufacturers (besides VW) is looking about as bright as Nokia’s future was around 2009. That is to say, the writings going up on the wall. Sure, they’re big, sure they’re the leaders in sales currently and yes they have a long financial runway, so this wont happen overnight.

It is actually now quite questionable whether or not they can even pull off the transition through this disruption of not just all-electric cars, but the disruption of the rebirth of cars from the “mechanical” era to the “high tech” era. The race is now on to see if they can take their massively inferior business model and navigate the rapid evolution before those coffers run bare.

From where I’m sitting… it’s going to be a bloodbath.
They talk about Tesla being catalyst to EV transition. Also Tesla has vertical integration, allowing firmware updates to the whole car, whereas legacy manufacturers are subsystem builders, so a lot more difficult for them to integrate update into every part of the car.

To be fair, it's a Tech blog, so views transition to EV as transition to tech products. I agree with this to some degree. I also agree with tech or EV reviewers more than traditional car journalists. Latter don't even understand EV they are reviewing. Case in point:
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/hyundai/ioniq/first-drives/hyundai-ioniq-electric-2019-review
A newly-fitted 7.2kW onboard charger can charge the battery to 80% in 57 minutes on a 50kW charger, or from flat to full in little over six hours on a 7kW charger.
Should read: A newly fitted 7.2kW onboard charger can charge from flat to full in a little over six hours. Alternatively, the battery can charge up quickly to 80% in less than 57 mines on a 50kW CCS DC charger.
The new 7.2kW AC charger is not used and does not affect DC quick charging.
 
Titled: The future of legacy car manufacturers.
https://techau.com.au/the-future-of-legacy-car-manufacturers/

They talk about Tesla being catalyst to EV transition. Also Tesla has vertical integration, allowing firmware updates to the whole car, whereas legacy manufacturers are subsystem builders, so a lot more difficult for them to integrate update into every part of the car.

To be fair, it's a Tech blog, so views transition to EV as transition to tech products. I agree with this to some degree. I also agree with tech or EV reviewers more than traditional car journalists.

A few inaccuracies in that link. Firstly hybrids will still be allowed in 2040 with a minimum electric range capability of 50km.
Secondly, who are these legacy car manufacturers that don't build their own car bodies. Other than collaborations between manufacturers sharing a car body with cosmetic changes on a few low profit models, I am unaware of any car manufacturers that don't press the majority of their own car panels and subsequently build their own bodyshells.
The article makes it sound like car manufacturers are held to ransom by their suppliers. Not always the case. There is a lot of competition among many suppliers all bidding to get the manufacturing contract. The car manufacturer has the upper hand and able to negotiate terms stacked in their own favour. Having suppliers means lower production costs, production numbers can fluctuate, if a car manufacturer for doesn't need parts because of a fall in demand for a certain vehicle, they don't have to suffer the cost of having to lay off so many employees until such time production levels increase.
All reasons why legacy car manufacturers are able to make profits. The article seems to see that as a bad thing, yet sees Tesla's verticle integration as a good thing. Strange they don't mention Tesla's lack of profit.
 
I also agree with tech or EV reviewers more than traditional car journalists. Latter don't even understand EV they are reviewing. Case in point:
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/hyundai/ioniq/first-drives/hyundai-ioniq-electric-2019-review

Should read: A newly fitted 7.2kW onboard charger can charge from flat to full in a little over six hours. Alternatively, the battery can charge up quickly to 80% in less than 57 mines on a 50kW CCS DC charger.
The new 7.2kW AC charger is not used and does not affect DC quick charging.

Maybe it was an editting mistake, much like your own "57 mines", a little ironic, I feel. :)
 
Maybe it was an editting mistake, much like your own "57 mines", a little ironic, I feel. :)
One is a typo. The other is mistake from lack of understanding. :)

If it were editorial mistake, then the subject would not be 7.2kW charger followed by minutes for rapid charging. Editorial mistakes are more likely to not make sense when read word for word, as you've pointed out with my typo. 57 mines does not make any sense, yet we all know what it meant.
 
One is a typo. The other is mistake from lack of understanding. :)

If it were editorial mistake, then the subject would not be 7.2kW charger followed by minutes for rapid charging. Editorial mistakes are more likely to not make sense when read word for word, as you've pointed out with my typo. 57 mines does not make any sense, yet we all know what it meant.

The journalist probably quoted the manufacturer's blurb word for word, or that from the advertising agency, so it's sloppy journalism, but like all of us they are under pressure to get stuff delivered and don't necessarily inspect word for word the validity of manufacturers' claims.

As for your typo, I wondered if you meant 57 miles, so maybe we don't ALL know what you mean.

Anyway it was meant as a light hearted leg pull, perhaps this thread has somewhat stripped you of your sense of humour.
 
Another local authority ditching ICE car for EV: https://electrek.co/2019/08/30/tesla-model-3-police-cost-performance-dodge-charger/
Two big things that we were looking at when shopping for cars were obviously cost and performance. Many times when you get a car that is in our cost price range, you sacrifice performance. With Tesla, the performance is better than the cars we are currently driving. It’s amazing, it’s smooth, it’s powerful, it handles great.

As for cost, Model 3 is the clear winner. The Standard Range Plus version that they bought is a little more expensive at ~$41,000, but they expect gas savings of about $6,000 per year, which means that the Model 3 will almost pay for itself over its lifetime (they expect six years as a police vehicle).

Bertram also expects significant maintenance savings with the Model 3.

The Bargersville Police Department says that it needs to hire more officers, and they plan to use all the money from the gas savings to do that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top