Cars I don't "get". Add yours!

[Negative Creep]

 

Why would I want to pay over two grand for a 12 year old, 1.6 petrol that has probably been clocked, thrashed up and down the fast lane a million times, with the harshest suspension I've had the misfortune to suffer and seats harder than wood. All for a poxy badge and "it's German so must be built well".

 

Because the general perception of the public at large is that of willful stupidity. Never mind, let's all go and buy 56" tellies from Comet.

 

 

 

Shit colour as well, I'd even prefer silver to flat red

[kinkersaab]

Come on Tayne, where are you?

[Waderider]

I've a few comments on the Prius.

 

All they are is a first step on the road to something more environmentally friendly than the status quo. A step backwards for now, when compared to a modern turbo diesel - take a look at the Volvo V50 Drive or the VW Bluemotion range. Take a look at anything light and diesel, or latest generation petrol. You can't get around the extra manufacturing environmental burden, the problems with the heavy metals in the batteries, and the actual mass and complication of the car. CO2 isn't the only sort of pollution........never mind that Priuses can be beat on emissions alone.

 

Automotive marketeers have seen a new segment of the "environmentally aware and open minded/ready to change customer" and have decided to go for it. Automotive engineers see developing current hybrid and electric cars as a foot on the learning curve. Of course some of these problems exist for non-hybrid electics like the Leaf, but all cars 'sin' - just some more than others. Priuses are annoying though - I don't think they do what they claim to do. I am ANNOYED when I see one. I am ANNOYED that L.E.Z. and company car tax is set up to support this vehicle, or any electric vehicle were the electricity comes from a non-carbon free source. How can people buy into technology so easily when it doesn't fill its raison d'etre? Why do people buy without applying some lateral thinking and a bit of nous before they make their environmentally friendly car choice? Can marketing convince people of anything?

 

The answer doesn't exist yet, but I suspect the shortest route to the answer is better, cleaner, lighter, longer lasting battery technology and a renewable non-carbon source to recharge from. Accepting climate change is man-made, which I do, and ignoring the real sentimental and cultural attachment to a rorty petrol or diesel engine.

 

The internet is full of opinions, of which this post is but one. Such topics require scientific analysis to get to the bottom of. But you can't even get to the bottom of the environmental burden caused by the manufacture of the Prius. To quote from Wikipedia (not scientific, but careful about not getting sued by multinationals):

 

"The British government and British media have requested that Toyota release detailed figures for the energy use and CO2 emissions resulting from the building and disposal of the Prius. The UK Government Car Service runs 130 Priuses. Toyota has not supplied the detailed data they requested to support claims that the lifetime energy usage of the Prius (including the increased environmental cost of manufacture and disposal of the nickel-metal hydride battery) is outweighed by lower lifetime fuel consumption."

 

"In the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority, an independent body charged with policing the rules of the advertising industry, ruled that a television advert for the Toyota Prius should not be broadcast again in the same form, having breached rules concerning misleading advertising. The advert claimed the Prius "emits up to one tonne less CO2 per year," while on-screen text included "1 tonne of CO2 less than an equivalent family vehicle with a diesel engine. Average calculated on 20,000 km a year." Points of contention were the vehicles chosen for comparison, whether "up to' one tonne less" adequately communicated that reductions could be lower, and whether the distance used was appropriate: 20,000 km per year is around a U.S. car's average annual driving distance, while a UK car's is 13,440 km."

 

An earlier complaint to the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority, decision 03/360 2003, was also upheld. It was ruled that Toyota was in breach of the New Zealand advertising standards code of ethics, by claiming "up to 89% fewer smog-forming emissions.†The figure was based on comparison with Euro 3 standards, which most new cars also met comfortably at the time."

 

Why haven't Toyota produced scientific evidence that the car is green? With their resources? Think of the extra sales, they could easily recoup research costs.

 

I don't get the Prius. I also don't get most of the cars listed on this thread. Especially the soft-roaders.

 

 

 

 

..

[mattblack]

a renewable non-carbon source...

 

http://thegwpf.org/uk-news/2339-the-tru ... scale.html

 

[fiatdaft]

so if climate change is man made,what man ended the ice age?

[scaryoldcortina]

Can marketing convince people of anything?......Accepting climate change is man-made, which I do

 

umm......

[Formula Autos]

I don't get the Citroen DS3. Yes, it looks perfectly acceptable, and no doubt is. I just don't get how it's 'premium' compared to the C3. The motoring press seem to rave on about the styling, but I don't see how the styling is 'better' than the C3s. It's different to the C3, but how is it 'better'?

 

Could it just be that the DS is the car the C3 should have been, if only Citroen had refined it further?

 

Trim/plushness issues aside (where you no doubt get what you pay for) the DS seems to me to offer no more than the C3. Why not just buy a well specced C3 instead?

[RoadworkUK]

I don't get the Citroen DS3.

 

I concur. And it has daft look-at-me LED lights, as per everything else.

 

However, in side profile that B-Pillar makes it look like a 3-door ZX. If you squint. A lot. I suspect that the DS3 having less biblical depreciation than the Citroen norm is just a blip. We'll be back to the good old days of disposable frenchies before you know it.

[Waderider]

mattblack- I'm confused slightly by your post, as the link you have put up agrees with my point of view, but the tone suggests you disagree with my opinion. The actual part of my post that you have copied and pasted refers to one of the major obstacles to electric powered cars - the ability to regenerate without fossil fuels. The second problem with electric cars is of course the pollution from the batteries, and their inadequate performance regarding mileage between charges, and mass.

 

Scaryoldcortina and fiatdaft, can't answer your posts directly, you need to be more clear about what you object to in my post. Is it surprise that a petrol-head can arrive at the viewpoint climate change is man made? I'm afraid the evidence is incontrovertible, and the scientific consensus is nearly 100% behind this viewpoint. Don't wear blinkers just because it suits your hobbies. Science gave you the technology in your cars, the technology in the computer you sit in front off, and science has been shouting about man made climate change for a long time now, with most of the naysayers being either quacks or in the pay of corporations with a vested interest. So you except the modern lifestyle science and technology has given you but not the advice it gives you?

 

LED's are probably part of the solution, in that they are a lot more power efficient than either filament bulbs or HID's.

 

I run older cars because of the green benefits, although I realise there are issues with the actual exhaust emissions - I can't afford a cutting edge car and in any case regard anything less than 5 years old as not being a financially wise purchase. I believe the best era of petrol powered cars is past and for that reason preservation of old cars is all the more important.

 

Sorry for the thread hijack.......I'm not going to get into this any further as although I'm confident I can defend my position, this is a car enthusiasts forum and the weight of opinion will be against me. Cars will never disappear, but they are going to change, probably pretty fast.

[scaryoldcortina]

Oh dear. All I can suggest is that you join http://car-politics.proboards.com and join in the discussion I started there (general board) re man made climate change. Let's just say I'm not burying my head anywhere, nor am I blinkered.

[pogweasel]

I'd rather slam my knob in the door than join team_twatz ego trip TBH.

[fiatdaft]

you didn't answer my question,anyway just shows how powerful marketing can be.

 

anyway this thread is heading slightly off topic.

 

and i would rather apply the bandage to it than join that pish,why is the forum not doing anything about the troll,that disturbed young guy was dealt with.

[RedSparrow]

I believe the traditional internet response is....

 

mattblack- I'm confused slightly by your post, as the link you have put up agrees with my point of view, but the tone suggests you disagree with my opinion. The actual part of my post that you have copied and pasted refers to one of the major obstacles to electric powered cars - the ability to regenerate without fossil fuels. The second problem with electric cars is of course the pollution from the batteries, and their inadequate performance regarding mileage between charges, and mass.

 

Scaryoldcortina and fiatdaft, can't answer your posts directly, you need to be more clear about what you object to in my post. Is it surprise that a petrol-head can arrive at the viewpoint climate change is man made? I'm afraid the evidence is incontrovertible, and the scientific consensus is nearly 100% behind this viewpoint. Don't wear blinkers just because it suits your hobbies. Science gave you the technology in your cars, the technology in the computer you sit in front off, and science has been shouting about man made climate change for a long time now, with most of the naysayers being either quacks or in the pay of corporations with a vested interest. So you except the modern lifestyle science and technology has given you but not the advice it gives you?

 

LED's are probably part of the solution, in that they are a lot more power efficient than either filament bulbs or HID's.

 

I run older cars because of the green benefits, although I realise there are issues with the actual exhaust emissions - I can't afford a cutting edge car and in any case regard anything less than 5 years old as not being a financially wise purchase. I believe the best era of petrol powered cars is past and for that reason preservation of old cars is all the more important.

 

Sorry for the thread hijack.......I'm not going to get into this any further as although I'm confident I can defend my position, this is a car enthusiasts forum and the weight of opinion will be against me. Cars will never disappear, but they are going to change, probably pretty fast.

 

Cool story bro.

[scaryoldcortina]

Meh. Just trying to take it elsewhere. Tell you what, I'll start a global warming thread on Retro rides. that will work!

[M'coli]

I'm afraid the evidence is incontrovertible, and the scientific consensus is nearly 100% behind this viewpoint. Don't wear blinkers just because it suits your hobbies. Science gave you the technology in your cars, the technology in the computer you sit in front off, and science has been shouting about man made climate change for a long time now, with most of the naysayers being either quacks or in the pay of corporations with a vested interest. So you except the modern lifestyle science and technology has given you but not the advice it gives you?

The evidence that climate change is man-made is not incontrovertible. Climate change itself is incontrovertible, there have been variations in climate since the atmosphere was formed. What is questionable is whether our use of fossil fuels are the only cause of the current level of warming that we are experiencing.

 

Fiatdaft's comment is quite correct - how did the planet warm up after the last ice age, indeed how did the planet warm up after any of the 5 ice ages known to science? We're currently in an interglacial period, but only 3 centuries ago were in what has been termed the "mini-ice age". How was the planet cooled then? (I don't know at this present time). As for wildlife and flora, I feel that humans are in the vanguard of a mass-extinction of many different species - there have been lots of these in the last 300 million years or so too, so any bleating about it is just to make ourselves feel less guilty. It is going to happen, no matter what we do.

 

Marketing and media are just different methods of mind control: religion was used to the same effect in the past. My opinion is that humans have found out what fossil fuels can do for them, and will continue to use them until either they're all used up, or we die out.

[ashmicro]

^^ What he said. The inconvenient truth is that it is not incontrivertible

[Negative Creep]

Odd that the scientists who say MMGW is irrefutable are the ones employed to study it. No problem = no job so there is undoubtedly vested interest in perpetuating it. Odd again how the only way we can be "saved" from it is to raise taxes. In the 16th century there were Frost Fairs on the Thames, in Roman times there were vineyards in Kent. Personally I think the whole thing is a con to fleece us out of money. Tax these stupid new tax bands which are based on CO2. It's apparently to encourage us into "greener" vehicles but does anyone seriously think that if we all went out and bought a hybrid tomorrow the bands would stay as they are? Or the London Congestion Charge would still be free? Also since it's to reduce congestion why should some cars be exempt, they take up the same road space?

[Cavcraft]

Do any of us (on here) run old cars for 'green benefits'? I fucking hope not, I thought you were all mingebags like me and would rather spend a weekend Blu-tacking ashtrays back in place and supergluing broken wheeltrims than worrying about how much c02 a Kia factory chucks out.

[Guest]

Hey outlaw, I agree it's an ugly little bugger but if you had ever driven one you would probably "get it". they are immense fun to drive despite the tiny engine - way more fun than a mini anyday. Couldn't drive one meself 'cos it would take me about a week to get back out of it - but hey ho - each to their own eh...

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

After the ice age the climate warmed up slowly, right now it's warming up quite quickly, in line with human pollution. Allegedly.

[Justin Case]

Let's accept that global warming is man made. If so then it will be caused by the effects of Chinese coal-fired power stations, Indian steelworks and the clearance of tropical rain forests and the resulting changes in the type of agriculture. Set against all that and the amount of energy used in heating and cooling (air-conditioning) buildings in the developed world then buying a Pious only because you think it will save the environment (as against other perfectly valid reasons) is not only a pathetic and futile gesture, but irresponsible in diverting attention away from the real causes.

 

Anyway, let's move on. Even Mrs A can't get the point of the Nissan Cashcow. What on earth were they on when they replaced the practical and compact Almera with this ungainly heap that hasn't even got 4WD. Other than the Micra, Nissan don't make 'proper' cars any more So, what is the point of Nissan? A major car company cannot survive by making small numbers of unrelated vehicles for small niche markets that are better covered by other manufacturers.

[mattblack]

mattblack- I'm confused slightly by your post, as the link you have put up agrees with my point of view.

 

The True Cost Of Britain's Green Obsession: Pollution On A Disastrous Scale

 

...one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem

 

it has an appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green technology.

 

The reality is that, as Britain flaunts its environmental credentials by speckling its coastlines and unspoiled moors and mountains with thousands of wind turbines, it is contributing to a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China. This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about.

 

...a giant, secret toxic dump, made bigger by every wind turbine we build.

 

People too began to suffer. Dalahai villagers say their teeth began to fall out, their hair turned white at unusually young ages, and they suffered from severe skin and respiratory diseases. Children were born with soft bones and cancer rates rocketed.

 

‘There’s not one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous for the environment. Ores are being extracted by pumping acid into the ground, and then they are processed using more acid and chemicals.

 

Each of the turbines at Dunmaglass will require servicing, which means a network of new and improved roads 20 miles long being built across the hills. They also need 1,500 tons of concrete foundations to keep them upright in a strong wind, which will scar the area.

 

Peat moors lock up huge amounts of carbon, which gets released when it’s drained to put up a turbine.

 

Not quite sure how this 'agrees' with you?

[Guest]

I'm looking forward to global warming, it was advertised as giving us a Mediterranean-style climate. I'm going to start up all my cars and leave them running for a few hours. C U L8R SNOW!

[Doc Holiday]

Fiat Multipla Why? (I think that's how you spell it) who cares anyway ugliest looking piece of shite on the road.

[Cavcraft]

Back to the H8TRD 4 PRIOUS'S. What's to say that not everyone bought one because they're a lentil knitting tree hugger? I expect a few went to people who wanted to save money on running costs and I bet a few companies got them for low tax rates etc.

[Guest]

They were on the company car list for my dad, he pondered one for the tax/MPG, but went down to the Toyota dealers to have a look at one and felt the interior was too low-rent so he went with an Avensis instead.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

I LOVE GLOBAL WARMING

 

[HillmanImp]

THE POWER IS YOURS!

 

 

As for cars i don't get, its any MPV with blacked out rear windows. If your kids are that ugly lock them in the cellar. It also looks crap as you cant tint the front windows for good reason.

 

Its also crap for dogging as nobody can see your fat fishwife in the back getting venerial disease from a builder. Fine in the summer of course, as you can wind down the windows but not in the winter.

[Pete-M]

They were on the company car list for my dad, he pondered one for the tax/MPG, but went down to the Toyota dealers to have a look at one and felt the interior was too low-rent so he went with an Avensis instead.

 

He's not that daft then.

 

I really don't understand why anyone would pay chunks out of their own wages for a company car. I could have one in my current job - and did when I started working for 'em - but common sense prevailed and I returned it as soon as I discovered that was an option. If I have to do a long journey for the company I use their vehicles, but I use my own cars for the commute to and from work. An XJR is a much nicer way of commuting than some little Jap faux-econobox.

 

Funnily enough, if the choice was "Drive a Pious" or "Pay a bit more and drive a real car instead" I'd go for the car, but as I have the option of "Don't pay for a car you don't want or need" that's the one I opted for.

[HillmanImp]

I really don't understand why anyone would pay chunks out of their own wages for a company car. I could have one in my current job - and did when I started working for 'em - but common sense prevailed and I returned it. If I have to do a long journey for the company I use their vehicles, but I use my own cars for the commute to and from work.

 

We get a 'car allowance' at my place which bumps up your salary to pay for it. I don't, as I am not important enough to get a company car. If you just pay for it yourself, I really don't get it either. You might get a good deal but you are forking out a fortune for someone elses car.

 

Prior to the rules changing the tax office used to tax you on the list price of the car when new. I used to work at the tax office and one chap had (IIRC) a Lotus Europa as his company car with an original list price of something like 2k (i could be well out I dont know how much they cost new but it was low). It was a right good dodge. He paid £12k for it but only got taxed on £2k.

 

Unfortunately they changed the rules.