The problem is that if manufacturers and lease / PCP financing companies want to stay in business and make a profit (huge depreciation of EVs), they cannot sustain the level of new sales because the second hand market just isn't there - its flooded with EVs few people want, even with that big depreciation.

The s/h market will find a level at which it functions effectively - it's what markets do. IMHO as EVs and charging facilities become commonplace, fears of range anxiety, battery longevity etc etc will diminish.

This is exactly what it's doing now, but is being significantly skewed by artificial means, i.e. government intervention leading to the behaviour by manufacturers and customers alike. The problem is that it is seriously negatively affecting many manufacturers, finance providers as well as customers, whether of new or second hand vehicles.

Many people (like myself) are being forced to either run existing cars way longer than would normally be the case, because market conditions have led to huge price increases for certain older second hand cars.

Few private buyers now for new cars.

At some point (and soon), finance companies will start to raise PCP / lease monthly rates to realistic levels to make a profit on disposal of 3yo EVs, and maybe even higher to recoup losses from the last couple of years, plus the next two or so as cars they sold under agreements from 2023 to now come off those deals.

Losses made on the disposal of EVs are history - the market will determine the future economic price for PCP and lease. Companies cannot unilaterally recover earlier losses by increasing prices - they would simply become uncompetitive.

They may be 'history', but financial losses mount up and at some point have to be reckoned with. That day is rapidly approaching, and not just in car financing.

Money owed cannot just be Xed out of existence, despite what some 'economists' may tell you, especially now that governments have now played their final cards to hide away legacy sovereign debt from decades of reckless spending and rolling over / borrowing to bail out failing companies.

There are only two options on that front - many (most) financing companies go bankrupt and likely start a chain reaction (other things could start it off / make it much worse / get worse more quickly), or the companies go the only other route available - put up monthly rates for new customers to cover real EV resale values and to recover (over a reasonable period) the large losses incurred over the last few years.

That will drive down EV sales significantly, but because government mandates dictate ever increasing percentages of EV sales, all this will do is significantly reduce car sales (and as a consequence production in the future), leading to huge losses for manufacturers because they increase the cost per car manufactured.

Normally, EV prices would then reduce, but because many people still don't want or cannot realistically run one, all it'll mean is further upping the price of second hand ICE cars, especially petrol/hybrids to even more unaffordable levels. There will be loads of unsold EVs (see China now) in fields.

Manufacturers too will not be able to sustain their price cuts, because they are either subsidising them from their own profits and/or from jacking up the price of ICE vehicles. Lower overall sales, losses per vehicle (or minuscule profits) and rising costs are not sustainable over the medium to long term to enable long term investment decisions and pay out decent dividends.

Costs of ICE production will broadly increase with inflation. The costs of EVs - particularly batteries - is declining. Current new price of comparable EV and ICE is similar.

Not yet, and much of that (as I have said many times) is due to manufacturers cross subsidising EVs by upping ICE prices by above inflation, plus many are losing money selling them to dealerships who then have to sell them as pretend second hand at huge reductions in order to make sales targets.

Who's paying for those losses? ICE buyers will not put up with this for long, and nor will shareholders/investors in car manufacturing companies.

I read a report today saying that Chinese firms are currently in a price war even at home to force out competition, which may well set off many bankruptcies, including in Western rivals as well as their own.

Even with that, they are apparently STILL cross subsiding home EV sales by keeping prices higher abroad, and making a fortune here because we don't charge tariffs and charging the same prices as in the EU. Supposedly the Chinese 'government' has been bailing many firms out, but again this can only go on for so long before something gives.

In 2-3 years time prices of ICE may be cut as manufacturers want to generate sales of vehicles which will soon be unsaleable using tooling and designs soon to become obsolete.

Eventually, governments will have to abandon the artificial deadlines and sales targets and just let the whole thing develop naturally as the market dictates. Either that or watch the entire industry and possibly disastrous effects on entire economies occur within a few years at best. The 'Net Zero' stuff (similar) is also lined in to this, making the situation much worse, as recent events in Spain and other parts of continental Europe showed.

Transition to EV and abandonment of ICE is a completely sound strategy. Similarly green energy generation vs fossil fuels. It is reasonable to question the timescales and incentives required to make this happen.

Personally I think they should stick with existing deadlines and targets - a new technology with fundamental major benefits to UK PLC (environmental and energy security) needs support to become established.

Yeah, doubling down on a failed strategy is always the way to go. This should been over a 30-50 year period, not a 10-15 year one, and not subsidised by the taxpayer nor the less well off, as it has been and continues to this day.

There may not be a buyers' market for second hand EVs soon if it naturally corrects via one means or another.

A personal aside - last year I bought an ICE SUV. I rejected EV as I make several trips a year where recharging enroute would be required, including southern Spain. Range anxiety, depreciation, dealer networks, battery life were all concerns - individually not enough to sway the conclusion but taken together lead me to ICE.

Were I making the decision today I would probably go EV - in a years time almost certainly.

Fine, but don't expect me and others to help pay (we cannot afford it), and besides, why should we?) for your purchase decision, whether it works out personally for you or not.

Free markets should be just that. With some notable exceptions (country and/or periods of time), most of the industrial (and especially the Western) world has been acting more like a communist dictatorship than free market democracies over the last 30 or so years, especially over the last 5-10.

Most people have been fed propaganda for decades now and only have had the choice up until very recently of net zero or net zero, IMHO backed up by dodgy research paid for by bungs.

I fully agree with you Terry W, the last time my wife and I travelled up from my home in SE Essex, in October 2024, in my excellent 8 year old 1.0 litre T-GDI hatchback, to visit my Cousin in Birmingham, a journey of some 145 miles, we stopped at a motorway services for a coffee and cake break etc after 2 and a half hours of driving, still about 30 miles away due to fairly heavy traffic on both the M25, and M1 and sundry long stretches limited to 50mph due to ongoing road works. On my return journey, the next day, I did the same thing, stopping after 2 and a half hours, making use of the motorway services on the M25. However, I note that that the motorway services typically charge around 76 pence per kWh which is considerably more expensive per mile than the cost of petrol in my 12 miles per litre ICE. I also note that even my local Shell Charging station charges a similar amount so I must assume that seeking a cheaper charge point en-route, just a few miles off the motorway is not going to reduce the cost of mid journey top ups.

Logical but wrong . You dont start your journey with an empty fuel tank and only use MSA to refuel do you? So from home to Birmingham you use the power put into your EV at the previous night. 145m easily doable in one gulp. And at Nine pence per kw from my home tarriff ( EDF Go35). Cost 38kw at 0.09 is Three pounds Forty two pence. Return journey If you top up in Birmingham you might pay Thirty pounds at a public charger. You might have a long enough range EV to not need a top up. So another 3.42 or 30 quid or something in-between. Wheras your car will be petrol over 40quid.

That's longer trips. The average journey is less than 35 miles. EV cost for that is head and shoulders better than petrol You'd need to be getting over 200mpg to beat it.

And now it seems Audi have reversed its decision not to produce ICE cars and will continue to build them for another decade.

But the inexorable rise in Chinese built cars on UK roads especially the new EV marques could be linked to the zero import duty they are charged here unlike the EU and USA which remain at 10%.

Surely a way for HMRC to help balance the books ?

https://www.carscoops.com/2025/06/audi-will-build-ice-cars-for-another-decade/

That Audi retain ICE production for 7-10 years de-risks 2030-35 slippage. Unlikely to be any major new models. Costs are low as they will use existing, proven designs tooling and machinery. Boston Consulting Group would have labelled Audi ICE a "cash cow".

A (say) 20% import duty on Chinese cars increases the cost of a vehicle by 20%. Consumers may then buy a different brand, or retain current car, buy a bike etc.

It is unlikely in the short term to do anything for UK car manufacturing as few brands are manufactured here. Those that are use overseas designs and many imported components. No benefit to UK employment.

End result - taxman takes the import duty on EV vehicles - "great" one thinks!

If EV car buyers pay more for cars leaves less for other discretionary purchases - individual impacts are diffuse, not easily identified, and may even come from savings or borrowings.

End result - the taxman loses VAT on the purchases that EV buyers would otherwise have made - bars, restaurants, home improvements, concerts, etc.

Import tariffs have a role in protecting local business, justified where they are strategically critical or developing. Otherwise it is simply another tax with some consequences.

And now it seems Audi have reversed its decision not to produce ICE cars and will continue to build them for another decade.

But the inexorable rise in Chinese built cars on UK roads especially the new EV marques could be linked to the zero import duty they are charged here unlike the EU and USA which remain at 10%.

Surely a way for HMRC to help balance the books ?

https://www.carscoops.com/2025/06/audi-will-build-ice-cars-for-another-decade/

Where on earth did you get the idea Chinese cars have zero tariffs? The UK charge 10%. The USA charges 100% or maybe 200% now.

"I didn’t want to be responsible for a long post about the difficulty in extinguishing EV fires..."

Very understandable. Long posts (extremely long, some of them) can be a problem and the topic seems to encourage them, although I have to say I don't bother to read them.

Long posts?

I do not read them. Largely turgidly repetitive with zero new content..

That's why Clarkson chose him as one of the greatest engineers of all time . He had a vision of the future .

There have been many visions of the future - not all have been somewhere near rational. Even some apparently rational ones have come and gone. Concorde comes to mind. And perhaps HS2 ?

Going through the EV phase before we finally accept that hydrogen fuel cell cars are the way forward reminds me of the struggle that Tommy Flowers , a humble Post Office Engineer had persuading the Ministry that the electronic version of the Collosus code breaking machine at Bletchley Park would bring huge benefits to the decrypting cycle.

He eventually used his own money to buy the electronic valves he needed a built the first electronic programmable computer.

Thats why Clarkson chose him as one of the greatest engineer s of all time . He had a vision of the future .

Hydrogen fuel cell cars are EVs. It's just a different type of battery storage/electricity generation.

The point is though how far away is this technology for practical mainstream use? If it's 10 years then where will other battery tech be by then and what tangible benefits would hydrogen offer?

Going through the EV phase before we finally accept that hydrogen fuel cell cars are the way forward reminds me of the struggle that Tommy Flowers , a humble Post Office Engineer had persuading the Ministry that the electronic version of the Collosus code breaking machine at Bletchley Park would bring huge benefits to the decrypting cycle.

He eventually used his own money to buy the electronic valves he needed a built the first electronic programmable computer.

Thats why Clarkson chose him as one of the greatest engineer s of all time . He had a vision of the future .

I don't think hydrogen powered cars have the slightest chance of displacing batteries.

Using energy generated to charge a battery is 95%+ efficient. The "round trip" - generate hydrogen, store it, then use the hydrogen to power a fuel cell is somewhere between 20-40% efficient.

Other issues - high pressure storage, distribution, battery tech, power infrastructure, recycling etc - difficult to quantify but unlikely to change a conclusion based on efficiency

Electricity generation and distribution infrastructure is very well established.- increasing capacity carries little risk. Hydrogen is largely unproven. Currently installed H infrastructure is utterly inconsequential compared to EV - playing catch up is implausible.

To stand any chance of general adoption H needs to have real consumer benefits - no real evidence any exist - even range is an increasingly doubtful argument given improvements in battery tech and recharging speeds.

Some applications for H may evolve in specialist areas - mining, road building, construction etc where (a) operations are frequently far from recharging points, and (b) where high energy density is required (may include aviation)

Same as me, I tend to only have the AC on if stuck in traffic or in an urban area. Otherwise I like the breeze, it reminds me of being on the motorbike.

In our mild climate, I find the AC most useful in winter for demisting.

<< I do the same in the truck and my car, neither of which will ever be battery only, AC on @ 18', drivers window open plus roof vent which prevents buffeting in both vehicles. >>

Talking of buffeting with open windows, rear-door windows in a car are much less buffety than front ones, but probably harder to operate ...

What’s the reason for seeing lots of EVs driving along in this hot weather with the windows wide open?

Have they switched off the A/C ?

I do the same in the truck and my car, neither of which will ever be battery only, AC on @ 18', drivers window open plus roof vent which prevents buffeting in both vehicles.

Dislike pure AC, still like to feel and hear some natural air to breathe and on my face.

The problem often comes if either:

1. The vent ducts get damp (one way or the other), which can introduce mould spores into the cabin, which makes the air smell bad, especially when the A/C is in cooling mode, plus the obvious health issues it brings, or;

2. You're needing to use the ventilation and A/C system a good deal when sat in heavy traffic, especially when its summer and very hot and humid, or in colder weather and the windows constantly need demisting.

Many more basic A/C systems (which really are just 'comfort cooling' as building services engineers call it) aren't capable of auto-demist, and even the more fancy 'climate controlled A/C' is mostly just comfort cooling with automatic temperature control and, for some, auto-demist.

Real, 'proper' air conditioning (especially of the 'close control' type - typically 45-55% RH) is the control of both temperature and the relative humidity, which requires a lot more fancy equipment and use of full time partial or filtered full fresh air, which isn't cheap.

Given most cars cannot do this, you often have to rely on re-circulated air more than you should, hence why some people open their windows instead. Still, you always have to weigh up whether the pollution from outside when in traffic and the extra drag (and thus fuel / range [for EVs]) if going at more than 30-40mph is worth it in hotter weather.

In colder weather (especially if it's raining too), you may have no good choices.

I wonder if EVs use separate cooling systems for their traction batteries and cabin? Presumably the former isn't just some fans (any more), i.e. it is similar to that of the cabin, akin to a PC's 'liquid cooled' processor but more fancy? I hope they are separate, given coolant loss in cars' cabin A/C systems isn't a rare event.

Air con permanently on.

Reduces risk of seals drying with repair costs, uses only a small amount of power compared to driving, cabin always at a desirable temperature - rarely changed.

Barely it keeps flicking between Zero and One Kw.

Suspect your battery maybe coming towards the end of its life ORB. What should happen is the engine will stop ( along with the aircon compressor obviously) but the fan should continue to run, you will still get the residual cold air for several minutes.

The previous poster is spot on regarding recirculation if traffic fumes are a problem.

The head of Stilantis has reported this morning that many more of their factories across Europe will close as the company are failing to meet their net zero targets set by government s because of buyer resistance to EVs .

Does it follow that each Chinese car that is bought in Europe reduces the chances of the European motor industry surviving profitably ?

Does it follow that each Chinese car that is bought in Europe reduces the chances of the European motor industry surviving profitably ?

Yes it does.

But we could have said that in the 80's and 90's when the Japanese and the Koreans started to send us cars that didn't break down... they rusted just as badly for a while, but here we are with Chinese cars now.

Difference is that they (the South Koreans and Japanese) weren't doing it as part of a larger government strategy to ruin / take over most of the world. Remember that despite what some may say about the economy / society, it patently isn't a capitalist one, but a communist one.

Note that many Chinese made / sourced products and sub-components have attracted bad publicity over the last few years because of allegations of them deliberately being given secret hardware / software 'back-doors' so the product can either snoop on users and/or be the way for the CCP's security services to switch the product off / gain control if and when required.

As well as cars, I'd rather my computer parts, HiFi etc still be made in either Western nations, South Korea or Japan (including all sub-components) as they were up until the early-mid 2000s, as they still were quite reasonably priced, and frankly the quality was often a lot better than a great deal of the stuff that is sold today.

I personally think a lot from China is never-mind-the-quality-feel-the-width tat dressed up as high quality goods, but at the same time is deliberately undercutting Western products to drive out all competition.

At least before, there was a decent amount of competitor products at different quality and price points for all. Now all there is - especially for cars - is cheap r****** and expensive. Very little is value for money, and often is increasingly not suitable for many ordinary people's lifestyle and/or living arrangements.

I would be seriously worried about the Chinese setting up shop over here, and besides, we should be prioritising British owned and run firms. It seems in the modern era all we can do is sell of good firms to foreigners, who then run them into the ground, leaving the field open for foreign competitors to move in.

Production today is all about automation and China are probably the only country with fully developed capabilities in that area (helped by their acquisition of Kuka).

Edited by Brit_in_Germany on 04/07/2025 at 21:13

I have written this on here before regarding vehicles. My brother in law in the middle east used to import pickup trucks and cars from China in the 2000's till about 2012.

Point made was.. You want cheap they'll do it. You want good, ditto. You want excellent,, pay more.

But the jury is still out on customer service and spare parts for the chines, but like others they have learned the lesson that spare parts are very very expensive.

China in the late 20th century had the advantage of low labour costs, a very clear economic and political strategy, a government intent on removing regulatory barriers and enabling investment.

What a joke. They have a woeful workplace safety record, similar on pollution from both mining operations and manufacturing plants, and external investment is predicated only basically going along with the dictatorial regime and often inhumane, even genocidal practices against its own people.

Genuine investment as we know it isn't done there, and most is via dodgy money from the CCP government, of course in return for significant 'return', including quite a lot of illegal ones. They also have no problem in buying (bribes) influence and natural wealth in poor nations in order to get one over on Western nations for scarce resources.

The UK by contrast had a largely obsolete infrastructure, high labour costs, excessive regulation and governments whose policies flexed in pursuit of votes and re-election.

And yet, so many people, including many frequenting these pages, continue to strongly endorse and help elect politicians and political parties that enabled this decline.

China today has 6 times the GDP of the UK, 20 times the population. That they can produce goods far more cheaply than we ever could in the UK is no surprise.

Just because something is cheap, doesn't make it of a quality you want. Nor does buying it make an ethical choice, given what goes on in that country and how they conduct themselves elsewhere in order to get the raw materials they need.

Does that mean you'll buy something at the cheapest price, no matter the ethics of the producer and its country of origin? So much for the ethical consumer that so many here love to espouse.

It seems principles go out the door to get what you want, or perhaps people don't mind dealing with communist dictatorships, even if they cloak themselves in a thin skin of capitalism.

Suggesting that quality is doubtful (or r******) is delusional. They can make poor quality very cheap products (so can the UK) - they are also capable of building civil and military aircraft, machine tools, running a space program, developing complex software etc etc.

IMHO, much of their 'quality' has been derived from patent fraud and intellectual theft, whether industrial espionage from company staff or actual spies working for the CCP's intel services who've been foolishly allowed to work for foreign companies, universities and even some who pretend to 'migrate' and 'become citizens' of the other country and work in civil service organisations.

Plus they (like their former Soviet counterparts) bribe greedy or sympathetic foreigners to do this on their behalf, or use them in 'honey traps' to gain access to sensitive information to either use directly or get the victim to obtain for them in payment for their continued silence.

Their firms also use direct government money to buy up foreign ones in order to nab the intellectual; property.

IMHO (and reported on a LOT in the media over the years) many Chinese companies and universities regularly lie about their 'discoveries' and new tech, sometimes to cover up intellectual / military property theft, but often to temporarily gain kudos for other reasons, including to attract customers and 'investment'. This also includes playing down serious health and safety failings and corruption.

UK future success needs to be built on its strengths, supported by an actively supportive government - education, universities, raising finance, developing markets etc. Trying to re-invent UK manufacturing dominance enjoyed 100+ years ago is deranged.

I wasn't trying to 're-invent UK manufacturing dominance enjoyed 100+ years ago' - stop putting words in my mouth or twisting facts to suit an agenda.

I was saying that many technological items made in China are not as good quality as in previous decades - hence why many don't last anywhere near as long as they used to, plus supporting nasty regimes should not be the default, especially those bent on our destruction / subjugation once they gain sufficient control.

Some people may not care because they likely won't be around in 10-20 years and are just being selfish in order to spend their final years living the life of Riley at everyone else' s expense, but those of us who will be and who care about what happens to subsequent generations are not like that.

We don't want to sacrifice what has been been Great about our nation for some nice trinkets for a few years, then have to live in a Third World country or one taken over by foreigners.

And on that note it's probably best we draw this thread to a close, it's drifted a bit too much. Also it's gone beyond 100 posts where we usually create a new one as this software does not allow us to have more than one page to a thread.

This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 17 *****

Edited by Xileno on 05/07/2025 at 19:30