EnterName

We'll have to wait to see whether this is correct or not, but I have to ask why EV batteries are claimed to be able to last a couple of decades, but mobile phone batteries, which have been evolving for decades now, still seem to noticeably age after about 3 years, and by 5 years they are well down on their ability to sustain extended phone use? Granted, they're not the same, but mobile phone batteries are claimed to only lose about 5% capacity a year, but they certainly seem to lose more. The discrepancy between claimed and actual is the point I'm making here. With MPG claims, the actual MPG of a vehicle is often less than the actual MPG returned. Indeed, even the computer in a vehicle will report a different MPG to the actual MPG. (Or are we now saying I can rely on the figure given by my car?) Why do people expect claims for EVs range and battery efficiency will be any more accurate than ICE MPG claims? Especially as there are additional range-effecting variables with EVs. Temperature and rapid-charging, to name but two.

I know next to nothing about climate modelling, as do most of the climate modellers, as far as I can tell. I know they are very good at producing models which provide evidence which corresponds with the narrative that people pushing the climate scare narrative are willing to pay handsomely for. Other accounts of what is going on are available, but as they don't align with the current narrative, (which seems to me to be more about global wealth redistribution than any genuine reaction to adverse climate conditions), so they don't get funding. Here's one such example. https://realclimatescience.com/#gsc.tab=0 If you're willing to repeat the current narrative, enthusiastically and convincingly, there's good money to be had for the canny, and at the very least, you won't get any bother from the "Activist" community online. We saw exactly the same thing with the "Safe and effective" Activist community. Activists doing whatever it takes to get Passives to do what they're told. Legislation, social pressure in public and online. Even the same sort of language, calling Passives "Denier!", as though disagreement was some sort of crime against humanity. If the social pressure didn't work, then the righteous anger kicks in. (Some lunatic on here accused me of being a Vatnik, because I refuse to kowtow to their narrative on the Russia/Ukraine conflict. 🤣 That conflict is another example where the Activist types quickly changed their avatars to signal compliance with the agreed narrative that Ukraine should be supported, then lost interest as the value of social credit from compliance to that narrative dropped sharply. You don't see many Ukraine flags on Briskoda avatars these days, do you?) As quickly as it starts, Activist support for "current thing" ends, and the social media avatars are changed to show compliance with the narrative on the next "current thing", once a consensus has been identified. Kneeling for Black Lives Matter, once almost mandatory, suddenly became passé, and simply stopped, as the activists, like a murmeration of starlings, suddenly changed direction and went after the next current thing. I wonder how many of the Activist community quietly deleted the online evidence of them taking a knee in support of Black Lives Matter? It's not easy to do that when you're a prominent politician. Some Passives seem to regard their refusal to comply just as virtuous as the Activists who rapidly comply do, but I think most Passives are just people who don't like being pushed around. Personally, I'm happy for the Activists to kneel at the alter of consensus, and get themselves jabbed, masked, kneel for those they've wronged, and potter about quietly around in EVs or whatever. Go for it! But I'm not about to join them until I'm convinced of their argument.

The environmental argument doesn't hold water for me. That "global boiling" nonsense if strictly for the kids. I'm old enough to have seen climate alarmism for decades. Example: I've gone through the CO2 maths before (probably on this thread, but certainly somewhere on Brisky). Even if the UK stopped ALL CO2 emission (assuming CO2 reduction is desirable, and I'm not convinced it is) then it would have next to no effect on global CO2. The models are always garbage because they are simply not sophisticated enough to cope with all the variables that have an effect. My point remains: We have the Activists insisting they know what's best for everyone and the Passivists saying "Sod off and leave me alone!". As the Activists apply more and more coercion, the Passivists will get more annoyed with them. Activists threatening Passivists with increased immigration for non-compliance is just another form of coercion. I'd be cautious about normalising coercion in politics, even if it is "for the greater good.".

I am not sure if this is a response to my post, but if it is, I don't think you understand why people object to coercion. If it's not, as you were. 👍

I have no objection to anyone running an electric car. If you can buy and run a car for peanuts, I am perfectly content and willing to cheer you on. However I DO have an objection to people campaigning to coerce me into a car of their choice. And I think that's at the root of the problem with resistance to EVs. (Not to mention a whole load of other issues.) Yeah, we bat around technical, logistical and practical issues, but IMO the core of the problem is more simple than that. There are a substantial number of people who would like to be just left alone to do their thing. (I'll call these people "Passivists".) There are substantial number of other people who insist that the Passivists, who want to be left alone to do their thing, CANNOT be left alone to do their thing, as them doing their thing causes an existential crisis for the world. I'll call people in that second group, "Activists". The Activists campaign and lobby Governments to intervene and coerce the Passivists into doing what the Activists want them to do. If the Activists don't get what they want as quickly as they want, they block roads, vandalise buildings and property, and generally make a nuisance of themselves to the Passivists. Social pressure is applied by the Activists onto the Passivists. The other side of that, is that social credit is given for compliance with the Activist agenda. (Hence we often see Avatar changes to show support for current thing.) Now the Activists don't enjoy bossing people around, their social and legal coercion is for the greater good, of course. The Activists are convinced the Passivists will thank them later. If the Passivists aren't grateful, perhaps because they are old and ignorant, then the children of the Passivists will thank the Activists, and hopefully become Activists too. Put simply: Activists are determined to force their will upon the Passivists. Passivists want the Activist to "Sod off, and leave me alone!". You can look at a load of the problems we have recently seen, and at their core, it always comes down to Activists trying to push Passivists around, and Passivists wanting the Activists to "Sod off and leave me alone!" EVs, Lockdowns, Vaccines, and doubtless many more. Digging deeper, I think there's fundamental differences in how Activists and Passivists view the world, specifically when it comes to risk, but that's heading off topic. But you can easily identify the Activists and Passivists: The Activists try and impose change, the Passivists resist it.

Apples and oranges, @lol-lol. I'm worried about range reduction, you're talking about power losses. Power losses are real, as is MPG loss, but not to the same degree as with EVs. Having sold my old 2006 Mondeo at 14 years old, the MPG was not noticeably different to when it was younger. My 2010 Fiesta diesel has a long-term MPG of just under 60MPG. That's not bad for a 14 year-old car. I wonder what the range loss on an EV would be after 14 years?

Hello and welcome! I do like the 2.0 TSI engines. 👌

There's that "coercion" I was talking about, though reading the Clean Technica article, it seems Ethiopia has been a bit of a dumping ground for knackered cars from Europeans countries, so the ban might not be as anti-ICE as it seems.

For me, home charging is a massive benefit of EVs. The prospect of not having to use public charging points would be a big incentive for me. Concerns over EV longevity is a real concern for people like me, who keep their cars for a relatively long time. Several times I've read of people gushing praise over their new car, only to replace it a couple of years later. I realise there are a variety of reasons for changing a car, but if I have a decent car, I hang onto it, so I find it odd for people to gush praise over a car they only plan to keep 2-3 years. The prospect of only having 80% of the range it used to have after a few years ownership does not appeal to me.

It must be very difficult for car manufacturers to plan manufacturing, when on one hand the people who buy cars are hesitant about buying EVs, but governments are increasingly insistent that they do. For some time, vehicle manufacturers bought into the various governments' agendas, and invested heavily in EV production. As we have seen in the UK, it doesn't really matter what the general public want, as, extremists aside, they just do what they are told by the Government, whatever it is, once a critical mass consensus has been established. (Organic or artificial, a consensus is a consensus, if it's the only opinion allowed.) I am trying to understand what is happening with EVs now, as some vehicle manufacturers scale back commitment to EV production. Are they responding to the market cooling on EVs, in defiance of government diktats? Do they anticipate regime changes in their various markets, and are pausing commitments while they see how such changes play out? Is the slow-down really all about cost? Personally, buying costs seem reasonable, but living with an EV demands more compromises than I am prepared to put up with at this time. Or maybe it's a combination of factors? Taxes on EV use are starting to trickle in, and free charging is starting to disappear for many EV users, so apart from the affluent idealists with their solar panels and battery storage etc., running costs are going to rise for the average EV user, not least of which will be insurance, as insurance companies realise that even fairly humdrum collisions can write-off an EV. It seems that now all the early adopters have got their EVs, as well as most of guests late to the EV party, so those who remain without EVs seem to be a hardcore of stubborn people who like ICE vehicles, and are going to have to be forced out of them into EVs. (Perhaps like drug addicts, they'll be weaned-off ICE vehicles via hybrids. 😄) But if everyone who wants an EV has one, and if coercion is the only way to get most people to choose an EV over ICE, then there may be some political fallout for the governments doing the coercion. https://www.businessinsider.com/ford-delays-ev-manufacturing-investment-cars-too-expensive-2023-10?r=US&IR=T https://archive.ph/GHRip

👋So long Steve!

No, I don't think it is. See my enhanced pic above.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to look like, but it looks wrong to me. I ran it through my CSI enhancer (😄) and to my untrained eye, that does not look like a healthy connection.

@nta16 already gave a load of great advice, and my unsolicited advice is as follows. (I'll admit, when I was your age, I am unlikely to have followed the advice, but I still think it's good advice. Some of it is unfortunately a bit late, but I'm usually late to threads.) As a first car, buy the cheapest car to run, ideally with low depreciation, and run it properly with good tyres, good fuel, and good maintenance. Insurance, fuel economy, VED rate, maintenance etc. are all part of running costs. IMO, do not mod it at all, focus your effort and resource on getting your maintenance absolutely perfect. None of those silly K&N filters, wheel spacers, loud exhausts, tints, wraps, bigger wheels, carbon-fibre bonnets, spoilers, lowering springs etc. etc. Yes they're all well and good, but IMO they're more trouble than they're worth and usually end up being a costly mistake. (Having made some of those mistakes, I speak from experience.) If you can't resist modding it, maybe splash out on a better ICE (in car entertainment) system if it needs it, without going mad. Installing a good dash camera is a sensible mod that may well reward you. (Watch out for it being used as evidence of speeding, though.) Maintain the car well, use good fuel and run on great tyres. (Great tyres are the best "mod" you'll ever make to a car.) View that first car as an investment in yourself. You're putting-up with a low powered car you don't find particularly desirable, to allow you get down to a sensible insurance cost on a car you do want. If you don't mod it and you look after it, with luck you'll get fair money back, and at the least it will be easier to sell than some boy-racer cast-off. The good news is, you'll find that there's an awful lot of fun to be had in a reliable, well-maintained but low-powered car that's running well on good tyres. (Dull & quiet cars seem to draw less attention from the cops, too.) Whatever you do, I'm sure you'll have a ball. But I expect you'll look back on having paid that £6700 insurance with astonishment in a few years. All that said, it's your money for you to spend as you see fit. Enjoy and good luck! 👍 ( Sorry to sound like a Dad, but I am a Dad, so that's just how I sound. 😄)

I live in a soft water area, and have upped my screenwash concentrate. Not sure I can stretch to filtered water, but it's worth considering, thanks. 👍

No. What did I say that makes you ask that?

I struggled for some time to find a suitable replacement for my Mk3 Mondeo, and my Mk3 Octavia has fitted the bill perfectly. It does everything well. The rear washer issue can be mitigated with regular use, though it's a nuisance having to do that, but that's pretty much it.

This has got me thinking, I really need to video my engine running. That way when I take it to the garage saying "My engine is making a funny noise." I'll be able to give them a normal baseline for comparison.

Thanks @varaderoguy, Is there also a time element to coil pack failure, or is purely a mileage/use issue?

Hello! I suggest you read out loud exactly what you have written, and then edit your post to ask the question(s) you thought you were asking.

Looks like a bargain to me! 👍

I suspect they'd write-off the V6 at the drop of a hat, if you ever needed to make a claim. But that said, that IS pretty reasonable insurance.

I love the idea of a 3.6, but running costs and repair worries would be inhibiting. I suspect it will come down to you seeing the right car at the right price on the day. You'll get in, have a drive and that will be it. Even a Nervous Nelly car-buyer like me eventually found "The One" that ticked all the boxes I needed ticking on the day to get me to buy it. (Even if I had to put up with 6 months of buyer's remorse afterwards wondering if I should have bought a vRS instead. 😄) Good luck! 🤞

Enables, but doesn't have to necessitate. That said, I don't (at this time) believe that EV acceleration that kills range, it seems that the energy needed to sustain high speeds seems to be the issue limiting range. Improved efficiency at speed appears to me to be an important factor in extending battery range, which is what I want from an EV. (That said, I am very much not an EV expert.)

EVs have far more performance than many people are accustomed to or need, and accident figures are going to reflect this. I'm not sure why the emphasis has been on performance rather than range for so many of them, but then I suppose using strong acceleration to try and attract "petrolheads" to EVs makes sense. I'd be happier with a 0-60 time of under 7 seconds and a 500 mile range rather than something with a sub 5 second 0-60 time and a 300 mile range.