|
From Paul Valentine.
I have posted stuff on this before, and if the articles are to be believed then we may all be forced into hybrid or electric cars, but the reading on them is not good regardless of makes so it is the lesser of evils in most cases.
www.petrolprices.com/news/hybrid-cars-meet-fuel-ec.../
As already posted the figures do not make any sense in the saving you will make, it might be possible to make it more economically viable if you keep the same car for 10-15 years, and for electric although they have a long way to go, there are certainly more charging points then before, but, if you do not have a hybrid then keep 70 quid on you as you will need it for a B&B if you cant get to a charging point as most still take about 12 hours to charge up, and if you doing it at home then it will cost a fortune in electric.
Hybrids are the thing for me as I like to go to out of the way places, but you should get it because you like it and do not fall for the " economy" of the thing. As stated these tests are done on a lab, on even ground with no wind, and a constant speed.
But be warned, ask how long the batteries lasts for, and how much they will cost to replace. because one thing they do not tell you is that all the batteries ( especially bad in small cars ) will have to be replaced, with a life expectancy of around 5 years give or take a few, and we are talking thousand's for just the battery plus labour, and no there is no chance of you doing it yourself, and in all probability as it involves the computers in the car you will have to get it done at a main dealer.
Edited by A Driver since 1988, HGV 2006 on 30/01/2020 at 14:28
|
|
Charging will, I think, become less of an issue. Points really are popping up everywhere nowdays and will expand exponentially.
You may as well argue to keep £70 for a B&B on you if you're stupid enough to run out of petrol in a remote area where the petrol station closes at 8.00pm.
And electric cars do not take 12 hours to charge unless on a basic domestic socket. They're becoming quite a common sight on the roads (I've begun seeing quite a few Tesla Model 3s about) so evidently work for many people.
|
|
Paul Valentine esq
I once as a test reset the mileage counter to zero and had 5 galleons in the back ( one of those plastic containers to see how far it would go on a full tank. it was just before I was due to change the filters anyway on a service.
So what is the average charge from empty for most Electric cars on a non domestic supply ?
How much does it cost to charge from a domestic supply ?
Consider this as well … As for cost, most experts agree a replacement hybrid car battery can range anywhere from $1,000 to more than $6,000, depending on the year and model of car, and without including dealership or independent labor costs. While this may seem like a big expense, car makers are set on reducing prices.
The majority of modern-day hybrid car manufacturers claim the batteries for their vehicles have an average lifespan of 80,000 to 100,000 miles. There have even been claims by some consumers that their hybrid car batteries have lasted 150,000 miles in one report and 200,000 miles in another report. Jan 16 2019
Above posted from another source and not my opinion, I do not know enough to state my opinion on this but it doe not look good to me.
Edited by A Driver since 1988, HGV 2006 on 30/01/2020 at 15:28
|
I once as a test reset the mileage counter to zero and had 5 galleons in the back ( one of those plastic containers to see how far it would go on a full tank.
I like that one - no problems if the road gets flooded either .... :-)
|
|
|
|
|
And electric cars do not take 12 hours to charge unless on a basic domestic socket.
do you know that for a fact, reports from you tube state otherwise, and no charger is guaranteed to give a fast or superfast charge, which can be affected by the weather or other circumstances including software problems
|
|
Paul Valentine
Mate, in the article I am asking the question as to how long it takes now ? I am interested in people who have electric cars ( not hybrid ) to give their experience on charging times.
I watched an old episode of top gear and they stated that in 1 of the cars they tested it was 12 hours to fully charge, from flat. They also stated at that time that when it went flat it stopped almost instantly with steering becoming almost impossible as the power controlled the steering wheel. ( that safety feature for another time )
Edited by A Driver since 1988, HGV 2006 on 30/01/2020 at 15:59
|
|
Mate, in the article I am asking the question as to how long it takes now
Be interesting to see any answers as I doubt you will get many the same as all are different, but we will see, Sir
|
|
|
|
Charging will, I think, become less of an issue. Points really are popping up everywhere nowdays and will expand exponentially.
You may as well argue to keep £70 for a B&B on you if you're stupid enough to run out of petrol in a remote area where the petrol station closes at 8.00pm.
And electric cars do not take 12 hours to charge unless on a basic domestic socket. They're becoming quite a common sight on the roads (I've begun seeing quite a few Tesla Model 3s about) so evidently work for many people.
Extra charging points are being installed, but unless whole swathes of car parks and flats/terraced houses get demolished or we all win the lottery, who exactly is going to pay for huge amounts of roadway etc to be dug up, new cables laid in trenches and expensive, reliable and robust charging facilities installed?
Thos of us who live in a flat or terraced house do not have the space or money to install charging points at home, and we cannot do so on the street (never mind its not our land and the security implications of doing so and using them is such public areas.
If you live in a house that's not too old, has a decent driveway and you've got enough money, then maybe. Government grants will undoubtedly stop once demand picks up, just like with solar panels. And at the moment, such grants (including for EVs) benefit the wealthy but are paid for through everybody's taxes - hardly fair.
No, I think there needs to be a significant step-change in the technology to use a safe version of wireless charging - we discussed this on another thread. Until then hybrids of each type are a 'stop-gap' measure which can be environmentally useful if bought for the right purpose and the cars are very reliable and long-lived.
Otherwise, I'd stick to a simple petrol-engined design for the moment for the light user, as they are far cheaper to buy and run over their life and should prove more reliable than diesels.
|
|
I'm not sure the future of charging is going to be everyone charging at home. After all, we don't all have large petrol/diesel tanks at home we decant fuel out of into the car? (OK, I know someone here will argue they do).
I suspect the future of charging will be whilst at the supermarket, workplace, cafe, shops or whatever for many people on very fast chargers.
Obviously any sort of infrastructure takes time - giant fuel reservoirs with pumps didn't appear instantly - but I'm not sure the challenges are quite as insurmountable as people make out.
Charge time is pretty easy to work out. A battery has so many KwH. A charger provides so many Kw per hour. Divide one by the other.
|
I'm not sure the future of charging is going to be everyone charging at home. After all, we don't all have large petrol/diesel tanks at home we decant fuel out of into the car? (OK, I know someone here will argue they do).
I suspect the future of charging will be whilst at the supermarket, workplace, cafe, shops or whatever for many people on very fast chargers.
Obviously any sort of infrastructure takes time - giant fuel reservoirs with pumps didn't appear instantly - but I'm not sure the challenges are quite as insurmountable as people make out.
Charge time is pretty easy to work out. A battery has so many KwH. A charger provides so many Kw per hour. Divide one by the other.
Indeed, but that's the tech they are still way behind on, that and range (especially in winter) for the price of the car. A lot of that is down to the sheer lack of energy density of batteries when compared to either petrol or diesel. The charging infrastructure is going to take a LONG time to put into place.
The other issue still is the relative scarcity of the battery materials (e.g. lithium) and how energy intensive they are to produce, and, more importantly, reclaim and recycle to re-use. There will be greater and greater demands on such resources as more and more tech is battery powered and power-hungry.
As I've said in other threads about such things, I think resolving such issues is further waya than many people believe, i.e. 30+ years, at least in terms of mass market affordability.
|
|
|
I suspect the future of charging will be whilst at the supermarket, workplace, cafe, shops or whatever for many people on very fast chargers.
I don't believe chargers will ever get fast enough to be comparable with the time needed to get (say) 30 litres into a tank. That is probably less than two minutes. Current being fed at that rate will need huge cabling to avoid overheating - costs lots, and copper gets dearer all the time since the Chinese have taken over the global market (ask a plumber). Superconductors anyone ?
|
|
|
|
|
Been doing a bit more research this week that has inevitably created more uncertainty about hybrids than I had before.
Price wise I have looked at what the cars I would consider are actually available for at reputable brokers instead of retail. I have also changed the list of possible purchases.
Corolla 2.0 Design (180 PS) £23700
Civic 1.8T Sport (180 PS) £20700
Focus 1.5T ST-Line X (180 PS) £19800
and instead of the Audi A3 the Skoda Scala SE-L 1.5 TSi (150 PS) £17100 simply because it looks like a bargain.
When I quoted performance figures above there was a bit of disagreement with my conclusions when it seemed to me that the cars were well matched. Since 3 are now 180 PS they actually look perfectly matched with only the Scala at a disadvantage which considering the price is an acceptable disadvantage in my book. Look at the 30 - 70 mph through the gears figure (in my opinion the one that shows real world overtaking ability the best)
Corolla 7.7 secs
Civic 7.0 secs
Focus 7.8 secs
Scala no info found but 8.1 secs for the mechanically identical but bigger Octavia
Then there is the Real MPG. Using Honest John again
Corolla 47.1 mpg (seen another 2 magazine long term tests that give a bit less than this)
Civic 46.1 mpg
Focus 38.4 mpg
Scala 46.2 mpg
Interestingly the figures I have seen for the 1.8 Hybrid in the Corolla and Auris are much better, in the mid to high 50's. Is the difference the fact that the new "performance" hybrid in the 2.0 is tuned more for performance or is it simply owners are using all the performance more of the time.
For me at this moment the clear winner would appear to be the Civic. Been to look at one and other than the looks only a mother could like (but it does look better in darker colours and when you are inside you cannot see it) and the very low seating position (no height adjustment on the passenger seat unless you buy the top spec) I really like it. A much bigger boot and rear space with the option of a space saver make it a winner without its superior performance and excellent economy. With £3000 between it and the Corolla and only 1 mpg its going to take theoretically over 1 million miles to recoup the extra outlay. The Scala would obviously take many more miles to recoup the difference but its slower and whilst the looks are less "challenging" they border on being totally boring.
Now for a new question. The 180 PS quoted for the Corolla is the combination of the petrol engine and the electric motor with a fully charged batter and I presume that when Autocar tested the car it was optimised to get the best performance. But what happens when you have been having a bit of fun and used all or most of the battery. Does it turn into a 120 PS petrol car because if it does it will be much slower. In comparison the Civic (and others used above) will always have the quoted power providing there is petrol in them. Or are I missing something.
Could well be a Civic on our drive come the summer.
|
Now for a new question. The 180 PS quoted for the Corolla is the combination of the petrol engine and the electric motor with a fully charged batter and I presume that when Autocar tested the car it was optimised to get the best performance. But what happens when you have been having a bit of fun and used all or most of the battery. Does it turn into a 120 PS petrol car because if it does it will be much slower. In comparison the Civic (and others used above) will always have the quoted power providing there is petrol in them. Or are I missing something.
Good question - especially where there's little chance for regenerative braking to get back the used-up electricity. Most hybrid will get between 5-10 (standard) and 20-35 miles (plug-in) on battery power alone, so I wonder how long they could work for in concert with the ICE engine (and thus under lower load, not having to move all the weight by themselves) when at peak engine output? Might be worth asking HJ or Toyota that.
Given that most hybrid ICE engines are set up for efficiency (as you say, the 2.0 here may be less so than the 1.8), I doubt if it produces much more than 150PS of standard 2L petrol cars in recent years (ties with the info on the car-by-car section, though nothing to confirm that on Toyota's website).
Only more tuned or specialist/new tech N/A engines power outputs above 150PS, so I suspect there is a limitation on the actual peak power for the Corolla in terms of time before the hybrid battery goes flat or starts automatically syphoning off power from the ICE engine.
|
I doubt if it produces much more than 150PS of standard 2L petrol cars in recent years
The 120 PS for the petrol engine I quoted was the figure given by Toyota in a magazine article. The also quoted 107 PS for the electric motor. Add those together and you get 227 PS which is not the same as the combined 180 PS specified by Toyota, I can only presume that some power is lost when both energy sources are running simultaneously.
120 PS from a 2 litre petrol engine in 2020 is pretty rubbish considering the 2 litre Pinto in dads 1972 Cortina produced 100 PS. That car weighed about 1000kg, the Corolla weighs 1400kg so the car will inevitably be slower when the battery is exhausted.
But some things have moved on, the 47 mpg from the Corolla is way better than the high 20's the Cortina managed.
But compared to the results achieved by other manufacturers using modern turbo petrols it is poor.
But I suppose I must consider that Toyota are marketing the Corolla 2 litre as a "Sports Hybrid", they say that if you want good mpg get the 1.8 hybrid.
|
|
No idea how those figures are worked out, but i was left somewhat confused after watching a video review of the Yaris hybrid recently. It was stated that the petrol engine produces 74bhp, the electric motor makes 61bhp and that the combined output is 100bhp?!
|
|
|
120 PS from a 2 litre petrol engine in 2020 is pretty rubbish considering the 2 litre Pinto in dads 1972 Cortina produced 100 PS. That car weighed about 1000kg, the Corolla weighs 1400kg so the car will inevitably be slower when the battery is exhausted.
The Toyota hybrid engines run on the Atkinson cycle rather than the more common Otto cycle so they sacrifice power for fuel efficiency. The 1.8L engine in my Auris generates about the same power (100ps) as my old 1.4L Jazz.
Not noticed the car struggling when the battery is low but I don't spend a lot of time driving up steep hills or in the grand prix lane of the motorway. It's not really a car for enthusiastic drivers, though.
|
|
|
I doubt if it produces much more than 150PS of standard 2L petrol cars in recent years
The 120 PS for the petrol engine I quoted was the figure given by Toyota in a magazine article. The also quoted 107 PS for the electric motor. Add those together and you get 227 PS which is not the same as the combined 180 PS specified by Toyota, I can only presume that some power is lost when both energy sources are running simultaneously.
120 PS from a 2 litre petrol engine in 2020 is pretty rubbish considering the 2 litre Pinto in dads 1972 Cortina produced 100 PS. That car weighed about 1000kg, the Corolla weighs 1400kg so the car will inevitably be slower when the battery is exhausted.
But some things have moved on, the 47 mpg from the Corolla is way better than the high 20's the Cortina managed.
But compared to the results achieved by other manufacturers using modern turbo petrols it is poor.
But I suppose I must consider that Toyota are marketing the Corolla 2 litre as a "Sports Hybrid", they say that if you want good mpg get the 1.8 hybrid.
Many N/A 2.0 petrols are now set up for low noise, emissions and high mpg, e.g. the Mazda3 with roughly the same output at 122PS in standard form (both the gen-3 and 4 cars are the same in that respect).
Some (e.g. the gen-3 Mazda3) have/had an uprated 'sportier' version (the 163PS Sport model) or similar remaps done to boost power (but not torque) for bigger cars (e.g. the Mazda 6 and CX-5) using the same engine (about 145PS and 165PS versions for both) at the expense of mpg and emissions.
For me, the Corolla 2.0 hybrid would be nice because it would give the extra power when I occasionally needed it for overtaking/pulling out onto fast moving roads, but would revert to the more 'standard' performance set-up as you say when driving most the time, achieving a decent mpg in the process.
Still, like the Mazda3 2.0 SA-X, they are now expensive cars at well over £27k for those models. I remember when I bought my current one back in 2006 the MPS version being sold for £22k and that you could pick up a Honda Civic Type R for £17.5k before discounts. It certainly does cost a lot to be environmentally-friendly these days.
|
|
|
|
Given that most hybrid ICE engines are set up for efficiency (as you say, the 2.0 here may be less so than the 1.8), I doubt if it produces much more than 150PS of standard 2L petrol cars in recent years (ties with the info on the car-by-car section, though nothing to confirm that on Toyota's website).
Iirc the new 2.0l in the Corolla/C-HR hybrids outputs ~143bhp. It's thermal efficiency is slightly better than the 1.8 (both iirc claimed as the most thermally efficient mass production automotive petrol engines when launched).
The version used in non-hybrids in other markets outputs ~170bhp.
|
For me at this moment the clear winner would appear to be the Civic. Been to look at one and other than the looks only a mother could like (but it does look better in darker colours and when you are inside you cannot see it) and the very low seating position (no height adjustment on the passenger seat unless you buy the top spec) I really like it. A much bigger boot and rear space with the option of a space saver make it a winner without its superior performance and excellent economy.
Further to my post last month we went and drove one and in truth it was the most disappointing afternoon out in recent times. The car was noisy, hard riding and was not as quick as a car with 180 PS should be. These are when compared to the existing Pulsar on our drive. When added to the obvious marmite looks and low seating position its a total no go.
But it made us think, do we want to spend probably £15000 + the Pulsar on any similar car, simple answer is no.
Never been a fan of MPV/SUV type cars. Only driven one, a C-Max and I could not see what it did when compared to our Focus hatch. Mate bought a S-Max and that was terribly noisy in the rear as was the Galaxy that replaced it. But we decided that we should try one and got a Volvo XC40 T4 on loan for 2 days.
No fan of autos and the wife was nervous of trying one after driving a Cortina auto back in the early 80's, the lack of engine braking concerned her. But auto it had to be to get the 190 PS T4 engine, they make no manual.
To cut what could be a long story short we loved it. Comfortable, quiet, smooth riding, excellent visibilty, everything the Honda was not. The auto box was a revelation. No shifting up and down whenever they feel like for no apparent reason like auto's I have driven before, it selected a gear and stuck to it until it really needed a change. Lift off and the car slowed down just like a manual, wife was very happy. Torque converter box so no DCT nasties. The one we were loaned had paddles on the steering wheel but we never touched them, no need. We did try "sport" mode for a couple of miles but all it seemed to do was hold the gears longer and make more noise for no performance gain, went back to comfort mode. A press of the throttle even in comfort made overtakes easy especially with the elevated driving position.
As I said above we loved it. Only downside was the 30 mpg ish it averaged but I suppose that is what you get with a 2 tonne tall 190 PS auto car. It would only add about £130 to our annual fuel bill at current prices, just have to use the Fabia more often.
Need to try a few more now, BMW X1, Skoda Karoq and VW Tiguan are possibilities but the VAG products are only 4 x 4 in the 2 litre petrols so not sure about those. The Jag e-Pace looks cracking but from what I have read it truly shocking for reliability so not a good idea.
|
|
These are all about £10,000 more (new) than what you were looking at before, but I'd say worth it if possible.
I had a good run in an XC40 two years ago last time I was looking; they were new on the market and there were only diesels. I found it good in many ways, but mich more ponderous and wallowy than the Q2 that I decided on. But some friends have a petrol XC40 T5 and they find it very good to drive. Only downside is as you say the thirst for petrol (the Q2, also 2-litre petrol) averages 37 mpg and will do 40 on a long run).
I look forward to seeing the BMW X1 plug-in which is due in the summer. Let's hope it won't be inrealistially more expensive than the 2.0i. I don't think 4x4 should be a disadvantage: it's similarly standard on the Q2 but there is a definite improvement in the handling over FWD. The Karoq should be better value than the Tiguan.
I also tried an E-Pace at a Jaguar open day - very unimpressive. No fun to drive - and almost unbelievably the tortured Swedish genius appeared to have moved from Volvo to Jaguar, as there was the EPB switch down by the driver's right knee, just as with the V60 that I was about to trade in. The XC40 if I remember right has it on the centre console as you'd expect.
|
These are all about £10,000 more (new) than what you were looking at before, but I'd say worth it if possible.
Not an issue. We both have our State Pensions coming soon so a £14000 approx increase in annual household income which will be surplus since we have been managing on our private pensions very nicely for 6 or 7 years.
I had a good run in an XC40 two years ago last time I was looking; they were new on the market and there were only diesels. I found it good in many ways, but mich more ponderous and wallowy than the Q2 that I decided on. But some friends have a petrol XC40 T5 and they find it very good to drive. Only downside is as you say the thirst for petrol (the Q2, also 2-litre petrol) averages 37 mpg and will do 40 on a long run).
The XC40 was the R-Design which has "sport" suspension and this may be why it did not feel wollowy in any way. There is also an option for adaptive dampers, not idea if the supplied car had them but judging by all the options it did have (almost £10,000 worth) it probably did. Will be getting another test drive locally in a more standard car should we decide to go ahead to ensure a lower spec car is still OK before we need to tick more boxes.
Problem with many cars we have looked at is the spare tyre situation and not only that but where do you put a full size tyre if you have to fit the space saver. Amongst the extras fitted on the XC40 was a space saver and it did not take up any boot space. Between the spare and the boot floor is a shallow area which can be use for soft bags but its real intended use is for the boot cover. With that space added to the space saver area you could easily fit a punctured full size wheel without needing to put it on granny's lap on the back seat.
The remaining available boot space is plenty big enough for us and actually meets Volvo's quoted 450 litres.
Having looked at Audis it seems to me that whilst there is space for a space saver there would be no possibility of putting a full size wheel in there since the space is carefully tailored for the spacesaver to fit around the battery and other electricals. Not good.
BMW quote that you loose 105 litres when fitting a space saver to the X1 making the boot smaller than the XC40. Then where do you fit a full size wheel, would need to look but it seems unlikely.
Game, set and match to Volvo.
I look forward to seeing the BMW X1 plug-in which is due in the summer. Let's hope it won't be inrealistially more expensive than the 2.0i.
Volvo do a XC40 T5 Twin Engine plug in Hybrid. Its about £8000 more than the regular T4 models but in truth its closer in power to a normal T5. Even with much better mpg I would never recoup that at 6000 miles a year.
|
|
Have you considered the mild hybrid Mazda CX-30 (with 2.0 N/A [165PS] and SA-X [180PS+] variants and TC autos) and CX-5 (currently only standard 2.0 N/A but with TC auto option)? The standard 2L isn't quick, epseiclly in auto form, but the SA-X version is better and comes in auto form on the CX-30, and likely soon on the CX-5. Both very good handling and looking too, and none of the Mazda diesel issues.
Better real mpg than the T4, but the Volvos are likely to be more swift. Worth considering. They may also have the option of coming shod on the decent higher 60 profile tyres and smaller wheels to help cushion the ride more, without any handling penalty of note.
The CX-30 has a boot of 430L and the CX-5 just under the 500L mark.
|
Have you considered the mild hybrid Mazda CX-30 (with 2.0 N/A [165PS] and SA-X [180PS+] variants and TC autos) and CX-5 (currently only standard 2.0 N/A but with TC auto option)? The standard 2L isn't quick, epseiclly in auto form, but the SA-X version is better and comes in auto form on the CX-30, and likely soon on the CX-5. Both very good handling and looking too, and none of the Mazda diesel issues.
Better real mpg than the T4, but the Volvos are likely to be more swift. Worth considering. They may also have the option of coming shod on the decent higher 60 profile tyres and smaller wheels to help cushion the ride more, without any handling penalty of note.
The CX-30 has a boot of 430L and the CX-5 just under the 500L mark.
We looked at the Mazda 3 when we bought the Pulsar we looked at the CX3 when we bought the Fabia, came away very disappointed both times.
Both fell well short because of the boot and spare wheel. In both cases a space saver was over £400 and required a kit to raise the boot floor making reasonable boots at best small for the class. The salesman took us to see the much bigger CX5 saying it would get around this issue but again the spare wheel was over £400 and the 500 litre boot reduced to 400 litres, incredibly poor for such a large SUV. It was the Mazda salesman who told us to put a full size damaged wheel on a passengers lap since it would not fit under the raised floor, totally laughable, very dangerous and possibly illegal. Honestly I cannot see the CX30 being any different thus the boot with an expensive spare (if its actually available) would be small 330 litre which is less than the Fabia with a full size spare under the floor.
Even if they were the fastest and most economical in their class the boot size and spare cost makes them a poor choice. But not all buyers insist on a spare and a good sized boot.
Take the spare out of the XC40 and utilise that space for luggage and the boot becomes a genuine 560 litres to the parcel shelf as measured by my 3m tape, I never believe makers figures. Bigger than the Mazda figures with no spare by a good margin, I rest my case.
As for the tyres, the XC40 we had on loan was shod with 245/45x20's and the ride was absolutely fine which surprised me. We tested it on roads we know to be rubbish and it was very settled with little noise transmitted into the cabin, very impressed. If we bought one it would undoubtedly be fitted with 235/55x18 tyres which would expect to make it better.
As I have said before MPG is not of great consequence. What cars test average for the CX30 was 37.6 mpg, the XC40 T4 4WD 27.1 mpg. I would expect to get more than those but if that was as good as it got the fuel for 6000 would only cost £330 at todays pump prices, If I was doing 20,000 miles a year I may well think differently, £1000 a year is quite a hefty sum.
|
|
Mazda include the empty space saver space in their boot size? Cheeky feckers! I must admit I'd forgotten about the spare wheel/tyre issue generally, and is a source of frustatration as a gen-1 Mazda3 owner who's car has a 410L boot with the (as standard) space-saver fitted.
I still hate it that some manufacturers not only do this but also include separate 'underfloor' storage areas that can never form part of the main boot are included in the total boot size. They should give the main boot area size, especially when a spare tyre is used.
That they still are charging £400 for one and that it reduces the boot space in the latest models (i.e. not just the gen-3 Mazda3) is just plain daft, and probably another reason why they don't sell that many.
I had (naively?) hoped they'd read between the lines by now (especially as so many Mazda owners forums slate them for doing so) and gone back to the old way. For me, I'd need close to the 400L mark for all my holiday stuff including golfing gear, so the CX-30 might do depending upon how much height it loses should a space-saver be fitted under the main boot area.
It's apparently a similar issue with the Corolla 2.0 which reduces useful boot space by it having more batteries than the lackluster 1.8. You can't win. I'd rather not go with Volvo (personally) just because they are now Chinese-owned, mainly because of the 'expertise' (or lack thereof) from that nation but also now because of they might be hit by parts shortages like JLR are due to the Coronavirus-driven plant shutdowns.
It's a shame we don't get a lot of the North American/Down Under market cars from many of the car makes (including Mazda) which offer larger vehicles (including SUVs and MPVs) and with more powerful engines.
|
It's apparently a similar issue with the Corolla 2.0 which reduces useful boot space by it having more batteries than the lackluster 1.8. You can't win.
It is solvable with the Corolla, buy the estate. Even the 2.0 has a deep well in the boot. But you pay for the privilage, they are about £30,000 when other non-hybrid estates can be had for probably £10,000 less.
And its not just Mazda. Recently looked at the Kia site regarding the Sportage. There has been recent discussions regarding the boot and spare on this car.
Seems that when it was launched in 2010 it had a full size spare, possibly an alloy. When the nose and tailgate were changed about 4 years ago they chaged the spare to a spacesaver with no increase in bootspace. Now with the launch of the hybrid they have deleted the spare altogether because of the batteries and to make things even dafter they have deleted the spare on the non-hybrids as well.
Then it seems Kia have gone totally barmy. they have made the hybrid a diesel when their previous hybrid, the Niro has been a petrol only since introduction. With diesels being banned form city centres what is the point of having a hybrid that works well in cities when you cannot use it in that environment.
Recently read that Mazda are planning to make their next hybrids based on their Rotary engines (suppose I cannot say w***le), how is that for grade 1 stupidity. Take the most inefficient and unreliable engine in world history and use it to make an drive train to compete against experts like Toyota who are known for their bullet proof reliability and in suitable use excellent efficiency.
|
|
I heard that Mazda are partnering with Toyota on their hybrid engines. Maybe just some of them, or part of the tech. It does seem a stupid idea to use a rotary engine, especially as they are also high in emissions as well.
As a lover of saloon cars, I would liked to have gone for the Corolla in version for the 2.0, but they don't offer it in saloon form, so the (actually best looking of the three variants) estate would be the one I'd go for. I've seen one in my town and they look quite nice, especially in darker colours or silver.
Mazda are also going to sell a CX-30-based EV.
I wish cars would go back to having the space for full sized spares and have them either fitted as standard or at least as a cheap (>£150) option. I bet that the weight saved by not fitting them gets about 1g/km of CO2 of reduction.
|
I wish cars would go back to having the space for full sized spares and have them either fitted as standard or at least as a cheap (>£150) option. I bet that the weight saved by not fitting them gets about 1g/km of CO2 of reduction.
Based on recent research there are big differences.
BMW and Volvo want £150 for a spacesaver in the X1 and XC40.
Mazda wanted over £400 when we last looked but cannot see spare prices now, at that price perhaps no one bought one and they deleted them.
VAG fit spares to some and charge on others e.g. Passat space saver standard full size + £160 but no prices or spec for Tiguan.
Kia have yet to price up a kit for the revised Sportage so buyers with current orders have no idea what it will cost.
Makes the Volvo look eve better.
|
|
When I was (now put off indefinitely) looking for a replacement for my Mazda3, I looked into this because of the huge variantion in cost and that increasing numbers of cars didn't even have the facility for spare tyres at all. I was impressed with Skodas who did still offer full sized spares on some models at least and (3 years ago) only charged £110 (I think) for a spare tyre and wheel.
How Mazda can charge £400 for a space saver (which is a generic size as well), which either means they're charging way over for that or the foam insert, wheel brace and jack (the latter of which used to come with the car as standard) is beyond me.
Apparently the best way to go to get one was to order thm from a dealer on the continent who charged lower prices.
It's not as though Mazda get charged extra to fit them as regards upper the CO2 on the car. Spare tyres should always be exempt as being a crutial safety device. I'd never buy a car just with a gank of tyre sealant gunk or runflats, because even they won't work if you have a significant failure/blowout.
|
|
Just remembered another 3 noteworthy points about the XC40. It had an electric handbrake, never had one before. 2 buttons next to the gear selector, one for "Auto" and the other to operate it on and off. Left it on Auto for 2 days, never needed to touch it, brilliant.
Then there was stop/start. We have that feature on our current cars so familiar with it and we have never had an issue leaving it switched on. If you don't want the engine to stop such as at traffic lights you know are due to change simply leave the clutch depressed. But with the auto Volvo it was a bit of nuisance especially when parking as well as at lights on occasions. Found the button in the touch screen and switched it off.
Finally the heater controls. They are in the touch screen but they are a line at the bottom that is visible all the time. No searching in menus required, simply operate like normal controls, no issue at all.
|
|
Your last para is good news, Thunderbird.
On some cars you have to prod menus and sub-menus to change the heater and AC settings, which could potentially take your eyes off the road for too long to be safe. Good to know that Volvo, with their reputation for safety, have thought of that. I think the XC40 also has voice control, which I suspect works for some people better than others.
|
Your last para is good news, Thunderbird.
On some cars you have to prod menus and sub-menus to change the heater and AC settings, which could potentially take your eyes off the road for too long to be safe. Good to know that Volvo, with their reputation for safety, have thought of that. I think the XC40 also has voice control, which I suspect works for some people better than others.
Still not as good as actually having buttons and rotary controls. One of the (still a lot) of good points about the latest Mazdas. Hopefully all makes will get the message on a lot of the issues we motorists raise when designing/updating their cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
