Rating cars is a tricky, but easily accessible way of doing things. Don’t want to read a whole road test? Head to the sum up bar and see a nice big number heartlessly marking out its viability as a product. Easy.

If I ruled the world I’d do away with the numeric system all together and replace it/bring forward the Pros/Cons points. Three of each in clear view telling the reader what’s very good and (rather than ‘very bad’ because that doesn’t happen any more) what’s slightly irritating about a car.

However, I do not rule the world. Numbers it is, I suppose.

You can go even more in depth with it too. There was one publication I used to read that rated a game in 5 categories, assigned them all a percentage, and then created an average overall percentage. If you REALLY want to split hairs you can start moving to decimal points too.

I’d say break a cars score into quality, fun, comfort, practicality, running costs etc then the reader makes an informed choice.

On a website you could get the user to list these qualiies in order of preference thus giving them a unique score for that car.

When it comes down to it, these days you really have to be going some to produce a bad car – or at least a car that your average buyer would consider bad. So do you really need anything more than something like this (from a buyer’s point of view):
1 – Avoid. This is a bad car.
2 – It’s worth a look. It is “an car”.
3 – Excellent, top of the class.

I guess it’s similar to your current 4-level system, but lumping “likes it” and “it’s OK” into one. Most cars will probably end up in the middle bracket, and whilst this doesn’t do much to split them apart, the differences will probably come down to personal opinion – not something that a review can really address.

Mike Potter
Fleetdrive

The statements about the Mini “survey” today (of people who had been using an Electric Mini, so hardly a typical sample) were outrageously biased.

On the “80% of journeys” claim, after the event, on analysis, that actually may be accurate. But as pointed out, that certainly does not mean 80% of distance driven, and it relies on the use of a crystal ball. It also presumes that before every journey you undertake a meticulous “flight plan” as you can’t modify your journey in the same way as a conventionally fuelled car.

First of all, to be confident your journey is “do-able” in your EV, you need to ensure you start with a full charge (or do the maths and figure out how many miles remain) and also that you end up at a destinantion with charging infrastructure. Then, you need to be fairly certain you won’t be diverted (“oh, can you pick Lucy from school on the way home, nip to the supermarket for milk, and then drop Lucy off at your mum’s 25 miles away?”). And what happens in winter when your wife and kids are stuck in a traffic jam on the motorway with lights, heater, wipers and radio on? Or in summer with the aircon on? When do you start driving with no headlights and a window open to demist, in silence, to save electricity?

What happens when someone forgets to flip the switch and you wake up to see that your car hasn’t been charged overnight? Do you write off the whole day? Do you wake up in the middle of the night worrying it’s on charge? What happens if you get an emergency call and have to nip to the hospital? Do you risk the car with just 20 miles left on the meter?

===

Answers to all the arguments about electric car development actually lie in far higher fuel prices (or fuel shortages – the same thing in practice). That will be the main catalyst for any advance in EV and other alternative technology.

So, why do most people (including the foolish AA President, and many, many voices, etc) constantly clamour for cheaper petrol and diesel prices? Pandering to populist stupidity.

In my view, we would do well to see £5 a litre of fuel. That will really enable an advance in alternative vehicle power. It’s a (popular) mistake to demand cheap fuel, in my opinion. It’s far cheaper than it should be.

Most people waste a lot of driven miles, driving a car is still extremely discretionary (ie, “let’s go for a drive”). You see people leaving engines running, just wasting fuel, and living far from their work (creating a commute). This should not happen, really. You don’t switch on your oven for fun, or run a water tap just for the hell of it, or leave the door open on your fridge, or leave lights on all day “for fun/enjoyment” . In the same way, driving should be frowned upon if it’s not a necessary journey.

What is necessary? Well, that’s up to you, but as I say… people run a bath without guilt, but often prefer a shower and would certainly not just run the hot water away for the hell of it. Yet a lot of energy goes into providing hot (and cold) water, just like into making petrol and diesel.

High fuel prices are GOOD, people will vote with their wallets and frankly learn to adapt to a new style of car use. So increase that fuel tax!

The answer is not Hydrogen, by the way, terrible stuff: TopGear got that bit VERY wrong the other night.

But, TG were right about the Nissan Leaf and Peugeot i-Skip or whatever it’s called. They are VERY niche and pointless at the moment. Range anxiety is a right killer. The voices relentlessly plugging EVs need to start tackling the truth and real issues, not just vomiting relentless PR and lies (like the 2p/mile cost claim made about the Minis).

Ling
LINGsCARS

Some 2 car families, where the 2nd car does almost exclusively short journeys, may benefit from buying an EV. However, most people in that position tend to run something like a £6k secondhand Ford Fiesta as the 2nd car – the market for £25k 2nd cars may exist but is very small, as EV manufacturers are about to find out.

I could probably use a scooter for 80% of journeys, but do I want to?

I could probably use a car without a roof for a majority of journeys but again, would I want to?

I could possibly use public transport for many of those journeys, but would I want to?

Ultimately, public transport is no use as I can’t live with the scheduled, fixed routes and limited hours. I need a roof for when it pours with rain and you can’t drive down the road holding an umbrella. The scooter doesn’t work as I have a family and they come in the car too – as do groceries and trips to Majestic for some wine.

So why would I want an EV that also has similar compromises and even costs me MORE money.

Usually one compromises to save money. We’d all like Sky+ HD with all the channels, but I can’t really afford it so we use Freeview+ HD. It saves us money and still covers us for 80% of the TV we’d like to watch.

I’d like to drink Veuve Clicquot every time I drink Champagne but, again, the budget forces a compromise.

I compromise, I save money.

EVs are a compromise but also an increased cost. It makes no sense to me. I buy a car for a price that is considerably more an ICE or hybrid model and it doesn’t even meet my requirement – forcing me to have a hire car or second vehicles for those longer journeys.

How does anybody come to the conclusion that buying one is a good idea? I’m quite sure for 80% of people, it simply doesn’t add up at all.