1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

The article also has flat out lies. Model 3 weights 1600-1800 kg, not 2200 kg.

But the GVW includes load capacity

the amount of available cargo and luggage load capacity is 650 lbs. (1400-750 (5 × 150) = 650 lbs.)

13 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

But the GVW includes load capacity

the amount of available cargo and luggage load capacity is 650 lbs. (1400-750 (5 × 150) = 650 lbs.)

Kgs not Lbs ?

1 kg = 2.20462 Lbs

1 minute ago, lol-lol said:

Kgs not Lbs ?

1 kg = 2.20462 Lbs

Irrelevant, it doesn't change the gvw weight from 2268kg

50 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

But the GVW includes load capacity

the amount of available cargo and luggage load capacity is 650 lbs. (1400-750 (5 × 150) = 650 lbs.)

Point taken. 2200 kg is indeed GVW rather than minimum kerb weight from wikipedia.

I still think it is a badly written article rehasing outdated ideas for people to confirm their biases:

In the article, it points out Range Rover are heavier, they used kerb weight (follow the link) rather than loaded GVW:

"

For example, New Range Rovers usually weigh upwards of 2400 kg, which is heavier than many EVs.

"

2400 kg is min kerb weight. When to Model 3 at 2200 kg as given in the article makes the EV sound like it is very heavy.

In reality, a BMW 3 series permissible gross weight is also 2200 kg. https://www.bmwhk.com/en/all-models/m-series/bmw-3-series-m-models/bmw-m3-sedan-technical-data.html/bmw-m3-competition-sedan-with-m-xdrive.bmw

2 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Point taken. 2200 kg is indeed GVW rather than minimum kerb weight from wikipedia.

I still think it is a badly written article rehasing outdated ideas for people to confirm their biases:

In the article, it points out Range Rover are heavier, they used kerb weight (follow the link) rather than loaded GVW:

"

For example, New Range Rovers usually weigh upwards of 2400 kg, which is heavier than many EVs.

"

2400 kg is min kerb weight. When to Model 3 at 2200 kg as given in the article makes the EV sound like it is very heavy.

In reality, a BMW 3 series permissible gross weight is also 2200 kg. https://www.bmwhk.com/en/all-models/m-series/bmw-3-series-m-models/bmw-m3-sedan-technical-data.html/bmw-m3-competition-sedan-with-m-xdrive.bmw

Standards of journalism went down the pan a long while ago.

It's all about agenda now, articles are spun to match the target reader demographic.

Do not buy an electric car, don’t do it, do not buy an electric car.

On 18/10/2025 at 09:37, wyx087 said:

Early view that EV's weigh more are due to EV's built on ICE platform compared against ICE cars. That view is no longer true for ground-up EV.

I'm not so sure about that.

My Cupra Born 59kWh is 1841kg including driver apparently and as far as I know is built on a dedicated EV platform.

My Superb diesel 4x4 is quoted as 1687-1859kg including driver (no idea why such a big variation, presumably down to what options are specified). The 2WD version is about 80kg less.

I don't think I need to explain that the Superb is a much larger car. It's over half a metre longer.

And for reference the 79kWh battery version of the Born is 1977kg.

2 hours ago, wyx087 said:

No, any modular platform that has any involvement with ICE will mean it is a compromised platform. Jack of all trade, master of none type of situation.

Similar situations are: Stellantis EV's. BMW i4. early Mercedes EQA, EQC.

First-gen Nissan Leaf is similar, they say they are built on new EV platform, but it's just re-designed B platform. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault-Nissan_B_platform#Nissan_EV_platform

This article is the reason I'm banging the drum that EV's used to be considered heavier. The article compares Corsa against ICE counter parts, built on a modular ICE based platform. It is the topic of discussion, why EV are only heavier when built on compromised platform.

The article also has flat out lies. Model 3 weights 1600-1800 kg, not 2200 kg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_3

You are so lazy in your reply, you just copy and pasted a link from Google, including auto-highlights. Didn't even read the article.

The parts of a Rolls Royce are mounted onto subframes and then mounted onto the frame, so on an ICE version, all the parts required to hold the engine and transmission, including the rear axle and drive shaft etc are all preassembled and installed as a single unit, so there is no left over bits and bobs when it comes to the electric versions. The car body is monocoque construction that the assemblies are attached to, so each body is bespoke to the type of drive train and fuel used, so is optimised to suite it. It is not a mass production car maker like the Vauxhall Corsa that you mentioned. The wheelbase and length of each type of Rolls Royce mentioned is completely different, once again completely different to that of a mass production car where standardisation of parts is necessary.

The weight of a car, regardless of the make will vary according to the design and specification, dual motor, long range, larger battery pack etc.

I really don't get it why you keep on about the ICE cars require special considerations over that of an EV? If anything I would say that the EV requires extra bracing and stiffening in order to handle the increases and instantaneous torque that you all go about that EV cars have and their ability to smoke an ICE away from traffic lights and their quicker 0-60mph figures.

The Tesla Model 3 weight you quoted was the curb weight and not the GVW, which we have been discussing, and as to a lazy reply, I think that it was you who once insisted that I include links, so the lazy part of that is, you for not reading the article.

11 minutes ago, Dieselgate said:

I'm not so sure about that.

My Cupra Born 59kWh is 1841kg including driver apparently and as far as I know is built on a dedicated EV platform.

My Superb diesel 4x4 is quoted as 1687-1859kg including driver (no idea why such a big variation, presumably down to what options are specified). The 2WD version is about 80kg less.

I don't think I need to explain that the Superb is a much larger car. It's over half a metre longer.

And for reference the 79kWh battery version of the Born is 1977kg.

Yes, MEB cars seems to be on the heavy side across the board. Especially compared to Skoda MQB cars.

It is also worth pointing out smaller EV are heavier than comparable small ICE vehicles.

3 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

I really don't get it why you keep on about the ICE cars require special considerations over that of an EV? If anything I would say that the EV requires extra bracing and stiffening in order to handle the increases and instantaneous torque that you all go about that EV cars have and their ability to smoke an ICE away from traffic lights and their quicker 0-60mph figures.

I'm not saying ICE cars require special consideration. I'm not saying EV require special consideration either.

I'm saying using shared or evolved platform as basis for comparison will make EV seem heavier due to the design have legacy parts that are no longer necessary. Legacy ICE manufacturer also tend to buy battery packs to bolt in, rather than start with EV skateboard platform as basis.

For example, EV can make the battery a structural part of the vehicle, meaning removing redundant stiffening parts that must be required for ICE vehicle.

Platform like this should be EV's starting point:

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/chinas-catl-launches-ev-platform-flagging-safety-top-selling-point-2024-12-24/

11 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

The Tesla Model 3 weight you quoted was the curb weight and not the GVW, which we have been discussing, and as to a lazy reply, I think that it was you who once insisted that I include links, so the lazy part of that is, you for not reading the article.

The article did talk about Range Rover weight in kerb weight.

It never specified whether the weight given was GVW or kerb weight.

Are you saying people should assume and accept your articles in order to confirms your biases?

What were you saying about thinking for one self and question things?

I question everything, I don't only question things from government. But social media and random webpages require double effort.

34 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

For example, New Range Rovers usually weigh upwards of 2400 kg, which is heavier than many EVs.

"

2400 kg is min kerb weight. When to Model 3 at 2200 kg as given in the article makes the EV sound like it is very heavy.

The point is, that once again you are not understanding the issue, if a person wanted a Range Rover, they would not be purchasing a Tesla model 3 so your comparison is useless.

As I have maintained throughout, the type of car anyone buys should be a personal choice, not stipulated by any government and the climate change is demonstrably a red herring.

We never had any standards for tailpipe emissions until 1992 in Europe, so up to then we had billions of tons of CO2 spewing out into the atmosphere which is blamed for global warming, so how is that we had such a really cold winter here in Europe in 1963 when everything almost came a halt as we were covered in metres of snow, diesel etc was freezing, trains and planes were virtually useless, ships were ice locked, but there was all of the CO2 in the air?

I remember that time well, we had ice forming in our bathroom with the water in the U bend to the bath actually freezing solid.

Edited 20 October, 202520 Oct by Graham Butcher

1 minute ago, Graham Butcher said:

The point is, that once again you are not understanding the issue, if a person wanted a Range Rover, they would not be purchasing a Tesla model 3 so your comparison is useless.

The point is, once again you are not understanding the issue and blaming other people for your errors.

The article pulled numbers in without checking, comparing GVW against kerb weight.

Just like how you are defending the article you posted without checking its facts.

4 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

As I have maintained throughout, the type of car anyone buys should be a personal choice, not stipulated by any government and the climate change is demonstrably a red herring.

Yes you have.

But what has that got anything to do with Model 3 and BMW 3 series both have GVW 2200 kg? How does that has anything to do with weight of vehicle? How does that have anything to do with:

27 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

the GVW, which we have been discussing

The article appears to be geared towards people favouring VED by weight ahead of the budget in November.

Get the public on-board by saying it's for those nasty heavy cars like Range rovers and evs over 2400kg.

So the majority still in ICE will think it's a good idea.

What's missing is the details that the 2400kg is to allow Evs to be upto that weight in the future when higher VED could be introduced on vehicles above 2000kg with evs having the extra allowance upto 2400kg.

They write what they think you want to hear and ignore what is probably actually being discussed in the Government think tanks. It's to gauge public opinion.

A system will have to replace the previous emissions based taxation. At the moment emissions fees are taken equivalent to a few years in advance at registration then all cars the same from year two.

This will become unsustainable as more evs are chosen

Sometimes in an article you need to look at what is not said. Or implications of what is.

16 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

The article appears to be geared towards people favouring VED by weight ahead of the budget in November.

Get the public on-board by saying it's for those nasty heavy cars like Range rovers and evs over 2400kg.

So the majority still in ICE will think it's a good idea.

What's missing is the details that the 2400kg is to allow Evs to be upto that weight in the future when higher VED could be introduced on vehicles above 2000kg with evs having the extra allowance upto 2400kg.

They write what they think you want to hear and ignore what is probably actually being discussed in the Government think tanks. It's to gauge public opinion.

A system will have to replace the previous emissions based taxation. At the moment emissions fees are taken equivalent to a few years in advance at registration then all cars the same from year two.

This will become unsustainable as more evs are chosen

Sometimes in an article you need to look at what is not said. Or implications of what is.

But with the VED being based on weight, it will also encourage cars to be made out of thinner gauge metal or even plastic and then I would expect even higher road fatalities as a result of there being less material to use as crumble zones to absorb energy. It really is time for some truly joined up thinking by our illustrious leaders.

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

But with the VED being based on weight, it will also encourage cars to be made out of thinner gauge metal or even plastic and then I would expect even higher road fatalities as a result of there being less material to use as crumble zones to absorb energy. It really is time for some truly joined up thinking by our illustrious leaders.

Put yourself, without a metal box, on the other end of accident. Which would you rather be collided with? A lighter vehicle or a heavier vehicle?

This kind of comment only focusing on vehicle crumble zone screams "me me me".

The Paris weight triggering of extra parking charge gave EVs a massive 400 kg weight concession over ICE.

As a multiple EV owner I am happy to have parity with ICE on charge weight either for extra parking charges or VED.

German and German derivative cars ie SEAT, CUPRA and Skoda do appear heavy compared to French, Chinese, Korean and US EVs of tge same class. I am being kind if I said that it is because of their extra quality and proper to cars tgat could be driving at over 160 kph on Autobahns. Or they could be just designed without weight reduction being an important facet to VAG etc.

I'm not so sure about the Germans not bothering about weight reduction. Noticed that with every facelifted version of the Superb I've had, they are lighter in construction, and this can be felt as well. The Kodiaq for instance has some weight reduction measures as well, for instance uses more plastic clips for holding trim pieces in place over metal clips and screws and infill panel between the front wings and the A pillar are now also made from honeycombed plastic instead of metal.

27 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

I'm not so sure about the Germans not bothering about weight reduction. Noticed that with every facelifted version of the Superb I've had, they are lighter in construction, and this can be felt as well. The Kodiaq for instance has some weight reduction measures as well, for instance uses more plastic clips for holding trim pieces in place over metal clips and screws and infill panel between the front wings and the A pillar are now also made from honeycombed plastic instead of metal.

Did you keep buying a smaller engine version i am sure the diesels got heavier?

Edited 20 October, 202520 Oct by Stonekeeper

8 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

Did you keep buying a smaller engine version i am sure the diesels got heavier?

No, always had the 110kw version. Never paid attention to the kerb weights, just going by the way the car felt. Each time they felt less well built than the old model did.

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

No, always had the 110kw version. Never paid attention to the kerb weights, just going by the way the car felt. Each time they felt less well built than the old model did.

As I said before the mark 1 Superb was probably the worst of 15 Skodas i had, apart from it's 1.9D engine, 130 hp version.

Handled like a barge. Stretched Passat chassis i gather but they did not bother to adjust the suspension. They got better but all well felt the Octy was the better car, at least for me a 6 foot one and passengers smaller than me.

Superb did get better all round performance it seemed. Would have had a 280 hp 4x4 as Octy never got that underpinning.

5 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Put yourself, without a metal box, on the other end of accident. Which would you rather be collided with? A lighter vehicle or a heavier vehicle?

This kind of comment only focusing on vehicle crumble zone screams "me me me".

That is a crap argument, crumble zones are on both vehicles and are designed to maximise the survivability of an accident.

1 hour ago, lol-lol said:

As I said before the mark 1 Superb was probably the worst of 15 Skodas i had, apart from it's 1.9D engine, 130 hp version.

Handled like a barge. Stretched Passat chassis i gather but they did not bother to adjust the suspension. They got better but all well felt the Octy was the better car, at least for me a 6 foot one and passengers smaller than me.

Superb did get better all round performance it seemed. Would have had a 280 hp 4x4 as Octy never got that underpinning.

That has not been my experience, even if it was me in the car, I feel much more at ease in the Superb than I have ever felt in smaller cars, Polo, UP, Golf, Mondeo, Passat, Octavia, Audi A4, Mercedes Benz C class, etc. I say only me, because I could comfortably drive and have driven all of them and more besides but on loads of them my seat would so far back that not nobody could seat behind me.

I'm not in the slightest bit bothered about being the first one away from traffic lights, or all out speed. What I require from a car is that it is comfortable so I can do a longish drive and get out still feel fresh. If I can't drive from London to Telford for a all day business meeting then the car is not suitable. It has to be big enough that my family can be accommodated with enough performance to get me out of trouble if ever required and be safe with predictable handling. The Superb did all of that with aplomb.

1 hour ago, Graham Butcher said:

That is a crap argument, crumble zones are on both vehicles and are designed to maximise the survivability of an accident.

The survivability of any meat bag outside of vehicles are not affected by crumple zones.

However, they are affected by vehicle inertia and body shape. Former is weight and speed, latter is lower car vs SUV.

My argument is that weight based taxation system to disincentivise heavier vehicles make sense on more levels than it doesn't. Manufacturers can cut corners or they can offer more smaller lighter vehicles that are less lethal to the other party.

Remember, vehicles exist in a shared space, crumple zones only aims to protect against similar masses.

10 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

The survivability of any meat bag outside of vehicles are not affected by crumple zones.

However, they are affected by vehicle inertia and body shape. Former is weight and speed, latter is lower car vs SUV.

My argument is that weight based taxation system to disincentivise heavier vehicles make sense on more levels than it doesn't. Manufacturers can cut corners or they can offer more smaller lighter vehicles that are less lethal to the other party.

Remember, vehicles exist in a shared space, crumple zones only aims to protect against similar masses.

Oh dear then, so that means vans, lorries and buses are a huge no then.🙄

11 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

Oh dear then, so that means vans, lorries and buses are a huge no then.🙄

Those have a function to serve. They are likely to be on a different tax bracket.

Does heavy passenger cars have any additional function to serve compared to lighter cars?

Of course, other than to inflate driver's ego.

Bigger sized human can still fit in smaller lighter vehicles, Hyundai Inster is a good example. Lots of Kei cars are light weight and tiny on the outside but giant on the inside.

18 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Those have a function to serve. They are likely to be on a different tax bracket.

Does heavy passenger cars have any additional function to serve compared to lighter cars?

Of course, other than to inflate driver's ego.

Bigger sized human can still fit in smaller lighter vehicles, Hyundai Inster is a good example. Lots of Kei cars are light weight and tiny on the outside but giant on the inside.

Very good friend of mine, 6 foot 5", use to get in the old Mini fine, after removing the bump stops and pushing drivers seat right back. Could not put anyone behind the driver but could use front passenger seat and rear passenger seat. I found the exterior size of the car has surprisingly little bearing on driver and front passenger space.

Whilst disappointed with European Car of the Year 2025 Renault 5 rear passenger space to be honest I travel 90% plus on my own or with 1 passenger who goes in the front. I have the European Car of the Year 2024 Renault Scenic for when I need 5 large driver/passenger spaces, which is not usually for 5 large adults as that would exceed the GVW of the cars with its mere, but average, 523 kgs between Kerb and GVW, but those little one, ie grand children, need rear space for their car seats. Low weight, even with their accoutrements, prams, strollers etc, but good rear seat space is nice.

So back to thinking about the CoTY 2025 R5, yes compromised in rear seat space and I would not like to be back there for more than a few minutes. Hope the wee electric Twingo has good front seat space like the R5, back seats will be rubbish to those of us over 6 foot but fine for children and petite persons but the cost saving in buying and running would be huge compared to running another sizeable car like the Scenic when I already have one for the team bus.

Edited 21 October, 202521 Oct by lol-lol