500 How long until your 500 fell apart, mine is not yet 6 !!

[UFI]

Yet despite all of this both petrols and diesels are far more reliable now than they where before.

Reliability is no the decline if you consider the average age of a car is falling as per this graph from the Australian motor vehicle census. The 1997 peak suggest the best cars were built in 1987. In Europe cars are killed by rust and moisture induced electrical problems, in Australia, it's mechanical failure, we expect our cars to last longer than you guys do.

 

[PuntoHowTo]

Reliability is no the decline if you consider the average age of a car is falling as per this graph from the Australian motor vehicle census. The 1997 peak suggest the best cars were built in 1987. In Europe cars are killed by rust and moisture induced electrical problems, in Australia, it's mechanical failure, we expect our cars to last longer than you guys do.

What a load of rubbish!

All that proves is that over time the average age of cars in aus has dropped from 11 years down to 10 years. Firstly that's not exactly a vast change... Secondly how does one graph about average ages support your claim reliability has dropped !? There was a big Asian economic crisis in 1997 which Australia would have been susceptible to, could be people just couldn't afford new cars at that time especially as most new cars in aus at that time would have come from Asian markets..
Could be number of different influences fluctuations in exchange rates poor credit options at that time the list is a mile long, what your graph doesn't prove is the cause certainly not reliability.

This evidence which directly observed reliability over time shows a huge downward trend in vehicle defects from a multitude of different manufacturers and vehicle types http://tradeinqualityindex.com

You're clutching at straws every step of the way here.

 

[306maxi]

I tend to agree with Andy, the mining boom will have kicked down the average age of cars too.....

 

[UFI]

I tend to agree with Andy, the mining boom will have kicked down the average age of cars too.....

I don't dispute that there will be other factors at play. I found the graph interesting none the less. Unlike Europe, we don't tend to crush perfectly good cars just because they're old, the only reason they get scrapped is when they're broken.

One thing is for sure, I'd hate to be a Mini owner

http://tradeinqualityindex.com/vehicles/MINI_Cooper.html

The black line represents the industry average. So of all 1996 build cars, 30+ percent of them have had significant issues (not really a surprise), Mini Coopers have already reported nearly as many failures despite being ten years newer.

If you've got an old tech 95 Jeep (pushrod engine from AMC of the 70's), only 12% of 20 year old cars have reported failures, funnily enough, there's a big drop in problems when Jeep ditched the Renault manual trans. There's another jump in problems when the new V6 was released. Happily, I've got one of the 5% cars, it will run for ever and not cost much if it does go wrong (I could get a engine & trans rebuilt professionally for the cost of a TDI head).

OK, I'm picking on the worst car in the survey, but if you look at the industry average I'd consider nearly 10% failure rate for MY2010 in the subcompact category pretty alarming, especially considering these are more basic American market cars. The only significant diesel car seller VW scores equal last of the volume sellers.

Finally, these figures don't tell the whole story. Reliability isn't just about break downs, it's about what a failure costs to fix. If you want to rebuild an old C4 transmission, it might cost you $2000 tops, so on an ten year old car, that's a completely reasonable spend. No ones going to fix a ten year old DSG or ZF 8 speed if they go bad. Both count as a single failure, but the newer one goes to the crusher (which mean no more failures recorded for that model! - Isn't that handy).

 

[306maxi]

yes, but depreciation is slower there due to the relatively more expensive new cars you have.

 

[AGH1965]

if an electric car was available at a reasonable cost, I'd have one immediately and sell my lovely 500TA.

Mick, did you already consider a Renault ZOE?

 

[AGH1965]

http://tradeinqualityindex.com/vehicles/MINI_Cooper.html

Show us a similar graph of a FIAT 500 and we are back on topic!

 

[UFI]

Show us a similar graph of a FIAT 500 and we are back on topic!

It will take another 2-3 years for the first NAFTA 500's to appear on that site.

 

[UFI]

yes, but depreciation is slower there due to the relatively more expensive new cars you have.

A 500 Pop costs 7000 GBP, when you consider taxes and shipping, it's cheaper here. Purchase price doesn't affect the 'speed' at which cars depreciate, a Lambo will be worth 60% of it's purchase price after three years, so will a Corolla (the Corolla actually does better in percentage terms).

Depreciation is slower because we don't consider a three year old car as 'old'. The number of times I've been asked if a ten year old car is is brand new after a good detail...

 

[UFI]

I still need to 'unstack the deck' when it comes to diesels.

I don't know where the 20% CO2 idea comes from, as far as I can tell, if you take all petrols (you know AMG, M, Porsches and Lambos) and then take all the slow moving diesels, you'll get a CO2 delta of about 20%. That I can believe, but that's hardly a far comparison, is it?

Let's look at some like for like vehicles and engines where performance is as close to identical as we can expect from two quite different power plants.

First, let's look at two cars that produce the same CO2:

Citroen C1 petrol and diesel both produce 109g Co2
The petrol takes a relaxed 13.7 to get to 60, while the diesel takes a tractorish 15.6. In the real world, the diesel is going to have to be driven harder at richer AFRs and is likely to produce more Co2 and more particulates (increase with richer AFR).

So let's look at something bigger Audi's A8, the petrol accelerates 0.1 seconds faster to 60 and is four MPH faster. It produces 3% more CO2 than the diesel.

Jeep Cherokee 2.4 petrol vs 2.8 diesel, the diesel accelerates 0.4 seconds quicker to 60, but is 8 MPH slower. The diesel produces less than 1% more CO2 (more is still more).

So the only reason to buy any of the above is if fuel tax is lower on diesel, unstack the deck and you'd have to really enjoy diesel fumes to buy any of them.

At the other end of the spectrum, Mercedes Benz Viano 3.5 petrol vs 2.2CDI.
The diesel produces 40% less Co2, but if you consider performance, it's 5 seconds slower to 60, so it's not a fair like for like. A petrol engine that slow would close the gap.

There are of course a few stand outs, from Fiat and PSA, but it seems that's because their petrols are on the thirsty side, rather than their diesels being brilliant.

When looking at like for like performance the Co2 advantage to diesel is in the order of 10%, but in many cases it's close to zero. They're popular only because the deck is stacked. This happens to match my real world experience running identically rated vehicles.

 

[Mick F]

Mick, did you already consider a Renault ZOE?

Yes, but the cost is rather high I think.
Starting prices are over £18,000 with the battery (preferred option), or £13,500 plus up to £100 per month if you hire the battery.

Not looked at secondhand prices.

I am tempted, but I'd have to convince Mrs Mick F.

Regards,
Mick.

 

[UFI]

I bought a Prius as it's cheaper than a full EV and you can add in an extra battery to give decent EV range. Up to 40miles on a $4000 conversion. EV choices are even worse here.

 

[Mick F]

I have many questions regarding EVs, most of which I haven't even thought about yet!

Main "complaint" about the Renault offerings is the battery hire. If and when we buy another car of any description, we will buy it outright just like we've done for many years. It puts me off buying a secondhand Renault Zoe because the battery rental will be part of the sale agreement. As far as I know, the ability to buy the battery outright is a new thing.

Another question is if you buy an EV you still have to charge the battery. The most convenient thing is to put the vehicle on charge when you arrive home so it's ready for the next time you use it.

How much does it cost on your electricity bill to run an EV as compared to putting fuel into your "normal" car? Electricity isn't free - we pay £0.16 per KWh.

Circa £1.12 per litre of petrol (at present) and that will take us perhaps 15miles/25Km
How does that compare to electricity consumption?

Thanks,
Mick.

 

[UFI]

Another question is if you buy an EV you still have to charge the battery. The most convenient thing is to put the vehicle on charge when you arrive home so it's ready for the next time you use it.

How much does it cost on your electricity bill to run an EV as compared to putting fuel into your "normal" car? Electricity isn't free - we pay £0.16 per KWh.

Circa £1.12 per litre of petrol (at present) and that will take us perhaps 15miles/25Km
How does that compare to electricity consumption?

I dislike Renault's battery lease too, but it means if the battery does fail, it's there problem. Battery replacement worries are a large part of why people don't trust EV's.

Charging the battery at home is (generally) easier than finding a petrol station waiting in the queue, trying to find the cheapest price and so on).

UFI costs 6.5c per km on 98 octane fuel. An EV (Nissan Leaf or Golf-E) would cost 4c per km, the smaller Zoe would be in the 3.5c/km range I'd imagine. My Prius (non plug in ATM) costs 5c/km with today's cheap fuel (only needs 91). If an EV saved money, everyone would have one, but in today's market you buy an EV for other reasons.

YMMV, on big down hills rather than killing the brakes an EV (or HEV) would be charging it's battery, so your results might be more in favor of EV. There are some other advantages, I've taken to reversing out of the driveway in EV mode with the door open as a very quick means of cooling the cabin on a hot day!

 

[Mick F]

Thanks.

So basically, an EV running costs are about half that of a ICE vehicle.
Not enough IMHO.
We do about 4,500miles per year these days.
Say we do 50mpg, it'll cost £450 per year in petrol.
An EV would therefore cost £225 in electricity.

ie we've saved £225 per year.
If we rented the battery, this figure would decrease or more likely go into negative.

How long would an EV take to pay for itself?

Regards,
Mick.

 

[306maxi]

don't forget the reduced servicing costs with an electric car.

 

[UFI]

How long would an EV take to pay for itself?

Unfortunately, it's roughly at the time you'd expect to be replacing the battery, so today's EV's basically break even. That's why a plug in hybrid makes sense, as you're not paying for a battery with 100miles of range if your daily requirement is 20miles, but you can still drive long distances. I was going to build a full EV but the AU law requires a 60 mile range on street legal conversions, which would have meant $8000+ on the battery alone.

Wheels magazine ran a Leaf as a long termer, at 20.3c per kWh, they did 3463km at a cost of AU$105.40. That would be 73GBP (at 16p/kWh), so about 150GBP to go 4500miles.

 

[UFI]

don't forget the reduced servicing costs with an electric car.

No oil changes, spark plugs, exhausts, clutch and the brakes will outlast the car. At main dealer prices that could pay for a replacement battery at 8 years , and of course, petrol is unlikely to stay cheap for the next decade, and although electricity can go up too, battery replacement is likely to come down.

 

[Mercky]

You can't help thinking about the stranglehold oil companies have and that perhaps the development and availability of battery technology is somewhat controlled. Conspiracy theory perhaps but I wouldn't be surprised!

 

[PuntoHowTo]

I still need to 'unstack the deck' when it comes to diesels.

I don't know where the 20% CO2 idea comes from, as far as I can tell, if you take all petrols (you know AMG, M, Porsches and Lambos) and then take all the slow moving diesels, you'll get a CO2 delta of about 20%. That I can believe, but that's hardly a far comparison, is it?

Let's look at some like for like vehicles and engines where performance is as close to identical as we can expect from two quite different power plants.

Rather than picking and choosing models which try to prove your side of the argument why not post something a bit more relevant? You witter on about the JEEP Cherokee but their were more fiat 500s of all models and editions register in the UK last year alone than the entirety of all Cherokee models still on the road from every year they've ever been on sale. In total their are over 4 times as many fiat 500s than their are JEEPS!

And the citron C1 less than 0.6 of them are diesels and they stopped making the diesel in 2010 because it was an old inefficient engine and wouldn't reach Euro5 standards.

You could have compared the Mercedes benz 3.0CDI with the 3.0 petrol but you didn't, why is that I wonder?

I must admit I didn't look at the Audi A8 but I suspect I will find yet more confirmation bias when looking at the stats.

Post up the stats for Euro4 and euro5 fiat fire engines the 1242 petrol and 1248 diesel show is how they compare

Better still what about the Ford Focus one of the UK (and the worlds best selling cars) how does that pan out?