wife wants a chevrolet spark....

I gotta say, avoid the Panda! My parents brought one under the scrapage scam a year ago.

The 1.1 base model has no rev counter, no remote central locking, no height adjustable seats and no 5th centre seatbelt (£125 extra). In order to open the boot you need the key from the ignition, there is no other way, this might not sound so bad until you try it with kids, its such a pain! Its a Lada for the 21st century.

All that wouldn't be so bad because you're getting a cheap new car right? It rattles like nobody's business: Its about on par with a 5-10 year old French car, that's how badly built it is!

The 1.2's have the rev counter, air con, remote central locking and other goodies, and like the 1.1, after about 08 they emit 119g/km of CO2 so are only £35 a year to tax. Not that I'd recommend that either mind :p

The Aygo benefits from better dealers than Fiat and its C1/107 siblings so that would be my choice if it had to be a new car.

But this is OcUk so: Ford Focus :p

In all seriousness the energy expended and emissions produced making a new car will far out weigh any savings you'll make driving a small econobox to and from school instead of a more sensible and refined used car which emits fractionally more C02.
 
Peerzy said:
Emissions have nothing to do with petrol.

Emissions are the gases that come out of the car after the combustion and usually harm the earth in some way.

Fuel useage is down to how economical the engine is with it's fuel.
Click to expand...

I think you have totally missed my point. I cited 'clean' cars generally promote consumer choice in terms of their reduced fuel burning and the related cost saving, not green in terms of global contribution to emission output. Back in the real world local pollution is really more of a benefit to cut.

Fuels are Hydrocarbons..... theres a reason the emissions of a Internal combustion engine generally have H or C in the compound chemical composition.

Burning fuel is just an endothermic reaction of Hydrocarbons with Oxygen. I suggest you dont try making statements that dont make sense?
 
Begbie said:
In what way is buying a brand new car more environmentally friendly than buying a second hand car?
Click to expand...

The car is on the fore court, so no additional build needed. Current car will be sold on or scrapped to be recycled.
No issues there.
 
Jonnycoupe said:
I suggest you dont try making statements that dont make sense?
Click to expand...

:D:D:D

The chevvy spark looks like a mazda 2 that has been driven into a wall at 20mph.

Horrible little things these city cars, what is wrong with normal small hatchbacks these days, it's not as though people have suddenly shrunk! Unfortunately people consider these normal small hatchbacks as 'big' just because there is something smaller. Before these little tonka cars where on the market people where more than happy with the small hathbacks on the market.

I personally think these super miniscule city cars are the hummers of the car world when you compare them to the G-whizwoz.

Order her to get a well specced small hatchback else go back to jail, do not collect £200 and -400x10^6 man points!
 
Jonnycoupe said:
Im confused.

Last time I went to the petrol station the petrol still cost me money to buy? This is why people want low 'emission' cars.
Click to expand...

but the low emissions is a bit of a misnomer, why not just ask for one with good mpg to begin with?

but say you took car a with x MPG and y emissions vs another car that was 10% worse, would it not still depend on how you drove both of the cars. one might need more 'stick' to provide an adequate level of performance, meaning you are wringing it harder and therefore pushing the mpg down ?

The car is on the fore court, so no additional build needed. Current car will be sold on or scrapped to be recycled.
No issues there.
Click to expand...

but there is then a gap on the forecourt so they will order another car in to fill it? and where that one came from they will have to go and either build another and so on.. sure its indirect demand for more car manufacturing but it will increase the demand anyway.
 
Nickg said:
but the low emissions is a bit of a misnomer, why not just ask for one with good mpg to begin with?.
Click to expand...

Because customers are being brainwashed by emissions to the extent that our VED system is based on CO2 emissions and people can use a CO2/km figure to lookup a 12month VED cost.

It always comes up when in reality the tax saving of many new cars, which people use a lot, is less than the saving for paying for an MOT test for 3 years.
 
[TW]Fox;17440390 said:
Where do emissions come from? Burning petrol.

Emissions are roughly proportional to fuel consumption.
Click to expand...

Generally yes, but not always.

The person I quoted implied people are walking into dealers and specifically asking for low emission cars to save money at the petrol station.

I'm sure you can find a car with really bad emissions and reasonable MPG and crud MPG and good emissions and so on.

Roughly they work out, but why be rough when you can actually just use the MPG figures :confused:
 
[TW]Fox;17441853 said:
Please find me a car with really good combined mpg and really bad emissions. Just one will do.
Click to expand...

It's a backwards way of working it out. There is a positive correlation between the two but by no means is it set in stone.

Why not just use the actual MPG figure.
 
Considering the NEDC (new European drive cycle) measures CO2 output and then calculates the MPG purely from the CO2 figure then it is actually set in stone!

The only deviation comes from the fuel type as petrol releases less CO2 per volume of fuel that diesel.
 
You said you could find a car with great emissions but poor mpg.

So do it and stop moving the goalposts.

Or admit you are wrong.
 
Jonnycoupe said:
Considering the NEDC (new European drive cycle) measures CO2 output and then calculates the MPG purely from the CO2 figure then it is actually set in stone!

The only deviation comes from the fuel type as petrol releases less CO2 per volume of fuel that diesel.
Click to expand...

Explain:

Golf 1.9 - 52MPG, 157g/km
Golf 2.0 - 47MPG, 145g/km

Worse MPG, better emissions.

Peerzy said:
I'm sure you can find a car with really bad emissions and reasonable MPG and crud MPG and good emissions and so on.
Click to expand...

[TW]Fox;17442174 said:
You said you could find a car with great emissions but poor mpg.

So do it and stop moving the goalposts.

Or admit you are wrong.
Click to expand...

I said you could find one. There is a link, but I can find cars with 150g/km and 30~mpg and cars with 150g/km and 25~mpg and cars with 150g/km with 35~mpg.

It's not as far our as I first made out, but it's a silly way to work out how economical a car is considering you have proper data for that already.
 
Peerzy said:
Explain:

Golf 1.9 - 52MPG, 157g/km
Golf 2.0 - 47MPG, 145g/km

Worse MPG, better emissions.





I said you could find one. There is a link, but I can find cars with 150g/km and 30~mpg and cars with 150g/km and 25~mpg and cars with 150g/km with 35~mpg.

It's not as far our as I first made out, but it's a silly way to work out how economical a car is considering you have proper data for that already.
Click to expand...

I was waiting fir this response hence I already answered it in my above post. The difference is petrol and diesel!
 
If this is anything like the old shape 800cc Matiz, you'd have to have a screw loose to buy one.
Disgusting, hideous cars.
Very noisy (Rattles, wind noise, horrible engine note), absolutely no acceleration, hideous looks, sickening interior.

I imagine they'll have attempted to fix the looks for this model but all the other negatives will still exist in the "new" car?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom