Jump to content

jetA1

Approved Member
  • Content Count

    1,548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About jetA1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Stockport
  • Interests
    Aviation and Motoring
  • Towcar
    MB C Class Estate C200 CDI
  • Caravan
    Fleetwood Sonata

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. jetA1

    Volvo maps

    Sadly even the Mk1 eyeball is no match for the decreasing standards of sign and roadside maintenance, which maybe why some drivers seek the assurance of some of the technology solutions. Of course there are no guarantees.
  2. More like to fool the motorist who can be hoodwinked into buying one without a clear understanding of what they're getting ...
  3. The devices may be unoccupied but are they actually working? The unreliability of public charging outlets is far and away the number one gripe of the local EV owners community in my area. I'm sure things will improve, but that is the current state of play.
  4. Which is precisely the point I am making !!
  5. I agree, which surely goes to prove that we are producing cars which are engineered to pass tests that have no realistic value in real life. Surely the motor industries R&D resources and expenditure should be focused on long term sustainable solution for the future not short term 'sops' to ill conceived short term government targets. The motor industry is only responding to government's legislation, which is sure fundamentally flawed. As with some many other government initiatives it is all short term. In a decades time when the EV market is a little more mature there will be much more practical pure EV solutions at which point the value of these stop-gap hybrids will plummet because they will not be providing an acceptable environmental benefit, their performance will be very, very poor alongside EV technology and they are quite likely to be expensive to maintain especially when their environmental benefit is likely to be so marginal . I accept there is no way of changing this but we really are being taken for fools be government.
  6. Our 'in-laws' have an I3-RE, we often go out in it with them '4 up' a very interesting car, the RE bit is very clever and allows virtually unlimited range if you top up the petrol in the RE tank, shame the tank is so small. To be honest I would say that RE is a better technology that hybrid. The 'suicide' rear door arrangement works very well, quite possibly better than a 4 door saloon. The 'in-laws' are both retired and very comfortable, the I3 is one of 4 vehicles they own between the two of them, although there is an undoubted low running 'per mile' cost the overall running cost (purchase,depreciation etc) is high for the type of car it is. I think the in-laws are typical of many EV owners in that it is a second vehicle which they can easily afford and they justify it (not that that is necessary) on the basis of low fuel cost. I like cars that are different, I like the I3, though could never afford one myself.
  7. I think there is a lot of 'kidology' around the fuel consumption figures quoted for PHEV's . The guy in the video did eventually (after much rambling) home in on the point that to make the most of a PHEV there needs to be a mindset to plug it in as frequently as possible to maximize the EV benefit. Now I may be wrong but in the example given (£70k+ Range Rover) I find it difficult to believe that a typical owner is going to adopt that mindset. The reduction in running costs is unlikely to be sufficiently attractive to engage the owner with the 'faff' of finding a charging point, getting the cables out an plugging it in. Maybe I'm too cynical for my own good, but to me the PHEV Range Rover is a token gesture towards reducing the fleet emissions score. It's not on its own, I'm sure there will be plenty more examples as manufacturers struggle to meet fleet emissions targets. I'd rather see the money and effort going into pure EV's and the necessary infrastructure so as to make them more acceptable (range wise - we're getting there but only on the very latest cars) and affordable. At 63 I doubt there will be an affordable pure EV option on my lifetime. I'm not in the market for buying new, the most I've ever paid for a car is £6k, I'm sure I'm not alone.
  8. Me, around 14k per year, her around 4k per year; I'm semi retired my wife is a full time carer. Both our mileages have increased since moving to a semi rural location, there is no shopping or any service within walking distance, everything requires a car. Even then local shopping is poor and better shopping is 12 to 15 miles away where previously it was all on the doorstep. Public transport is virtually none existent so use of a car is essential.
  9. In the very worst event if it had been put to the test a vehicle examiner would have got involved and would have found that the pads on the car were completely legal. I was stitched up.
  10. I've suffered the next worse step, a fail because "the brake pads won't make it another 12 months" . In the latest MOT regs there is a limit of 1.5mm on brake pad thickness, below this threshold it is a "do not drive failure". I had this on my wife's car but it was a matter of 'opinion' by the tester. The reality is that it is almost impossible to measure the brake pad thickness to a 0.5mm accuracy in the course of an MOT test. A failure was issued with the comment "they wont make it another 12 months". The reality was that when measured the minimum pad thickness was 3.2mm on any of the 4 pads. This was a blatant error by the tester, when I picked the car up they were most surprised that I did not immediately ask them to replace the pads; I can only presume they were trying to create work for themselves. As I have a part time job at a motor factors I was able to obtain new pads and presented the car for retest within 24 hours, which it passed. This was blatant job creation by the garage, an MOT test is all about condition of the car "at the time of test", failure on what 'may' happen in the future is just wrong.
  11. I think I saw the same article, the owner failed to make the necessary inquiries before purchase, the supplying garage was remiss in not fully explaining the impact of exceeding the £40k threshold, the car was an i3-Range Extender, so not a pure EV therefore does not benefit from the EV tax benefits, the journalism was dreadful because they quoted the situation with motor-homes completely ignoring the fact that VED rules have changed for motor-homes. I'm sure it is not the first time this mistake has been made and it won't be the last, while the responsibility ultimately lies with the owner the supplying dealers could behave better, but of course they're probably thinking about commission on sales and don't want to risk their deal. I'm sure its a problem many people would like to be in a position to experience.
  12. Now living on the south coast I recognize the idea of motorhomes parking on car parks, promenades and nearby roads, but it is nothing to do with people holidaying, this is how some people live as an alternative to renting/buying bricks and mortar properties.
  13. Do they have to justify it? What the supplier has to do is produce a product which is perceived as desirable by the customer, it is the customer who has to justify the cost, after all they are spending the money. Isn't that the way it works with this type of niche low volume product? Actually isn't that the way it works with any product or service? Within my scale of values there is no way I could value this level of spend, but if others want to indulge who am I to comment. Value is a function of the person spending, we all have different values, to each his own.
  14. A few years ago while I was gainfully employed and driving a company car (funded by BP ) I did a long term comparison between supermarket, vs BP Ultimate vs supermarket plus Millers. I drove over 5k miles on each option. There was no doubt that BP Ultimate gave a better mpg than a supermarket fuel., however the improved mpg did not cover the additional cost of buying the premium fuel. Supermarket fuel plus 'Millers' came in between supermarket and premium fuel, Supermarket fuel never caused a problem but mpg was slightly lower than either premium or fuel with additive. Having worked in the fuel distribution industry for 30 years my own results were exactly as I expected. Because of the funding mechanism of my company car I spent many years on the road in the employment of an major oil company but buying all my fuel from supermarket filling stations, the company did not offer an incentive to but their own products. My fuel buying choice was entirely driven by cost and the major oil co (my employer) lost out on my fuel purchase and didn't give a monkeys.....
  15. I think you'll find that the only example of 'doping' at the point of delivery at the filling station is Costco. Other than that the distribution system up to and including the last point of bulk storage does indeed contain 'un-doped' fuel. The doping takes place as the fuel is loaded on to the tanker vehicle at the distribution depot. The equipment used to dope fuel allows for extremely precise control of the additives (as you would hope and expect) and records the activity providing trace-ability for ever vehicle compartment that is loaded.
×
×
  • Create New...