Nissan XE vs SV and PCP or not PCP

Lantus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That interest free on the Skoda isn't interest free because the GFV is a lower.

A lower gfv is a good thing! The bigger the difference between the gfmv and market price the more equity you have. Well structured PCP deals will have lower gfvs. Early PCP deals ran into trouble where the monthly payments were low and the gfmv too high. At the end the customer had no equity and was required to pump in more cash. Not good

fm

fm wrote: »

but you also owe 12.500 so that's zero

I owe 12,500 if I want to buy the car, you do know PCP is designed to keep you coming back and for now that suits me fine.

Villain

Lantus wrote: »

A lower gfv is a good thing! The bigger the difference between the gfmv and market price the more equity you have. Well structured PCP deals will have lower gfvs. Early PCP deals ran into trouble where the monthly payments were low and the gfmv too high. At the end the customer had no equity and was required to pump in more cash. Not good

Mad_Lad doesn't seem to understand the equity part.

Lantus

Lantus wrote: »

A lower gfv is a good thing!

Sure if you wish to buy the car, I don't and most people on PCP won't this defeats the purpose.

However, PCP is an alternative and can be good if you can't decide if you want to buy it out or not, it will give you 2-3 years to think about it.

BoatMad

There is no such thing as a good GFV or a bad GFV. talking about " equity " in a wasting asset is also nuts.

You simply have to compare total cost of purchase

For example compute the difference in financing the lower GFV at higher pcp mileage deals against the penalty charge per km to see where the sweet spot is

Building " equity " is nonsense, whether you pay the difference at the end or through the financing period is irelevsnt , simply calculate and pick the one that costs you less money. Remember you are in effect " financing " that equity via the pcp. It could be better for example to ha e a higher GFV , no equity and finance the deposit via the credit union at 5% for example, you have to do the " math"

Remember never finance on greater then zero interest anything that for the same amount lets you keep your money in your bank account

It simply doesn't matter what equity you have in the car at the end of the pcp , one way or the other you are paying. Remember you are " buying " the car one way or the other. The rest is just cash flow optimisation !

BoatMad

I agree with Villian about BEV purchases

You can't compare a leaf with a pulsar , that's min/maxing the leaf.
The purchaser doesn't have the option of selecting a smaller Nissan BEV , so they are stuck with a particular model.

The correct comparison is between the " diesel or petrol car you want or like " compared to the BEV you want or like. Then compute equivalent finance and running costs. In this regard , current BEVs are very difficult to justify financially, you are clearly paying a premium to own the car. The fuel savings are simply not enough to cover the financing at 8 % ! , of the difference in car costs.

Depreciation is a major worry. Particularly , as we have little data post 5 years. Hence buying say a 6 year old ICE , you have a reasonably clear understanding of value and potential repair costs. Wheras , in a leaf , you could be facing a very detonated battery after a year or two ( ie by year 8 ) rendering the car virtually valueless.

These are big unknowns

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

I agree with Villian about BEV purchases

You can't compare a leaf with a pulsar , that's min/maxing the leaf.
The purchaser doesn't have the option of selecting a smaller Nissan BEV , so they are stuck with a particular model.

The correct comparison is between the " diesel or petrol car you want or like " compared to the BEV you want or like. Then compute equivalent finance and running costs. In this regard , current BEVs are very difficult to justify financially, you are clearly paying a premium to own the car. The fuel savings are simply not enough to cover the financing at 8 % ! , of the difference in car costs.

Depreciation is a major worry. Particularly , as we have little data post 5 years. Hence buying say a 6 year old ICE , you have a reasonably clear understanding of value and potential repair costs. Wheras , in a leaf , you could be facing a very detonated battery after a year or two ( ie by year 8 ) rendering the car virtually valueless.

These are big unknowns

The unknowns don't really matter if leasing except maybe the depreciation but this also applies to the diesel car, it's not known until you sell it.

Going by the GFMV the Leaf clearly wins over the Octavia over the 3 years , both cars will have value above of course so the gap could narrow or widen.

There isn't a single soul who told me they are not considering an EV for their next car due to depreciation, running costs or battery longevity , in fact all those I asked and that's a lot of people said range is a considerable factor but the greatest reason of all for not considering an EV is they are not interested.

cros13

BoatMad wrote: »

You can't compare a leaf with a pulsar , that's min/maxing the leaf.

How do you come to that conclusion? The Pulsar is the equivalent vehicle in Nissan range. The Leaf is slightly bigger in every dimension due to having to fit the battery pack but passenger accommodation and cargo is comparable.
The Octavia has a little less boot space and little more passenger space... but is reasonably comparable.

The Leaf chassis design is even derived from the platform underlying the Pulsar.

And after the grant the 24kWh Leaf is cheaper than the Pulsar at every trim level.

I know a couple of people looking at the Leaf for 2016 and the cars they are cross-shopping against are the Pulsar and Octavia.

I would imagine the Leaf to have more value after 3 years than the Pulsar, but that's just my opinion.

cros13

Deleted User wrote: »

I would imagine the Leaf to have more value after 3 years than the Pulsar, but that's just my opinion.

Well the Pulsar has only been available since 142, but so far they are matching each other euro for euro in depreciation.

cros13

cros13 wrote: »

Well the Pulsar has only been available since 142, but so far they are matching each other euro for euro in depreciation.

I'd rather compare at 3 years.

Villain

I fully agree with BoatMan when he said:

Depreciation is a major worry. Particularly , as we have little data post 5 years. Hence buying say a 6 year old ICE , you have a reasonably clear understanding of value and potential repair costs. Wheras , in a leaf , you could be facing a very detonated battery after a year or two ( ie by year 8 ) rendering the car virtually valueless.

These are big unknowns

People have been buying used ICE cars for generations the values are easily predicted, EV's that is an unknown at present.

Lantus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The unknowns don't really matter if leasing except maybe the depreciation but this also applies to the diesel car, it's not known until you sell it.

Going by the GFMV the Leaf clearly wins over the Octavia over the 3 years , both cars will have value above of course so the gap could narrow or wider.

No car wins over another on its gfmv. That's just a number and its relative to each car. A top of range BMW will have a much higher gfmv but that's because its initial value is higher.

The key facts are the cost of the car over three years, that's your deposit and 36 PCP payments. That's what the car will cost. Then add your tax. Then work out your fuel costs based on your milegae or what you currently spend.

You can compare any multiple of cars in this fashion to see how they compare. The dealer might be able to offer some guidance on how much equity they expect the car to have after three years. This may alter the deposit ratio to better suit your needs so in three years it doesn't leap up unless your prepared to invest more cash.

BoatMad

cros13 wrote: »

How do you come to that conclusion? The Pulsar is the equivalent vehicle in Nissan range. The Leaf is slightly bigger in every dimension due to having to fit the battery pack but passenger accommodation and cargo is comparable.
The Octavia has a little less boot space and little more passenger space... but is reasonably comparable.

The Leaf chassis design is even derived from the platform underlying the Pulsar.

And after the grant the 24kWh Leaf is cheaper than the Pulsar at every trim level.

I know a couple of people looking at the Leaf for 2016 and the cars they are cross-shopping against are the Pulsar and Octavia.

because a potential buyer of a small car has a choice of diesel and petrol models, with various spec levels , whereas the Leaf buyer has a choice of ONE.

A proper comparison is a user selects the closest ICE car that matches their needs and budget and then " searches " Nissans extensive BEV options for an equivalent car, then you " select" the closest Nissan BEV. you then run a comparison of your needs and budget against the chosen range of cars

The analogy is Im looking at houses in bray, but for comparison , Ill compare two in Dalkey and the " cheaper " of the two Dalkey houses is better so Ill buy it over the one half the price in Bray !!!!!!!!

Thats not a proper comparison of my needs

BoatMad

just to clarify for people

GFMV is a meaningless figure, its just like ballon leases that have been around for years. ultimately you have to pay it one way or another , its just a final lease balance figure

Funding " equity " in a wasting asset via a PCP with greater then zero interest costs , is nuts

Inthe case of high interest PCP, evaluate the cost of getting the highest GMFV , ( by selecting lowest milage) and compare the " penalty " per km, against the lower GMFV on the higher mileage PCP options, If the penalty is lower then equivalent PCP difference in finance, take the penalty option ( and remember , some of this can be negotiated away if you are buying again), always ensure you owe them more then they owe you on retrade in

if you have a >0 PCP interest rate, it never generally pays to " build equity" , what you want is a GMFV equal to the value of the car in real times at the end of three years , building equity by paying high PCP interest is nuts , get the deposit from the credit union at 5% and invest it for the three years , resulting in net 1-2% financing if you want too.


also if you are putting in more cash as a deposit, evaluate the effect in GMFV, I notice some calculations are not linear , you should simply be financing the difference between your deposit ( trade in , retained " equity" plus cash and or scrappage) less GMFV sometimes i notice the resulting calculations are not " correct " from the PCP calculators

do the maths and min/max your costs/benefits


depreciation is only relevant in the PCP period , if you are unfortunate enough to be relying on that " equity " , at 7,9% financing, you are mad building equity in that way.

do not assume nor in fact plan to have any " equity " in a >0% interest PCP.

BoatMad

The key facts are the cost of the car over three years, that's your deposit and 36 PCP payments. That's what the car will cost. Then add your tax. Then work out your fuel costs based on your milegae or what you currently spend.

yes and no , only if the final balancing figure is equal to the market value of the car, if its lower, your costs are greater, if its higher you have financed too much

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

The unknowns don't really matter if leasing except maybe the depreciation but this also applies to the diesel car, it's not known until you sell it.

other then you need to ensure that the GMFV is pitched correctly

depreciation is more of a factor for 2nd hand car market, but there its a very serious issue for BEVS as we dont have enough data. personally I wouldn't touch a second hand leaf at present

Going by the GFMV the Leaf clearly wins over the Octavia over the 3 years , both cars will have value above of course so the gap could narrow or widen.

building equity by paying greater then normal credit interest is nuts

There isn't a single soul who told me they are not considering an EV for their next car due to depreciation, running costs or battery longevity , in fact all those I asked and that's a lot of people said range is a considerable factor but the greatest reason of all for not considering an EV is they are not interested.

of the four people that expressed interest when I announced I was doing the maths , the resulting feedback was

1. Hmm I'm on the borderline range wise
2. Its an expensive car
3. Im not sure I can afford to wait around at chargers
4. tell me ,more , ill look at it.

depreciation, running costs etc only get looked at after a buyer has made an emotional decision to buy it. then they start , within the limit of their abilities to do the " financial "modelling

However view people can do such maths unfortunately , and most buy with the heart not the head remember 70% of the decision logic of a human is emotional

Lantus

BoatMad wrote: »

yes and no , only if the final balancing figure is equal to the market value of the car, if its lower, your costs are greater, if its higher you have financed too much

The gfmv needs to be lower than the market value! The more the better. Let's say the market value of any car is 10,000 after 3 years. The gfmv is set at 6k. That will provide 4k of equity that forms the deposit going into the next 3 years of PCP. The 36 payments you made were structured so the dealer can realise this money in selling your old car.

If the gfmv matches the market value your in trouble.....if its higher then technically you will owe the dealer money. No pcp deal should be structured like this.

If the GFMV is higher that goes towards your deposit or off excess mileage, but inmost cases the dealer will write off a few thousand Kms, shop around !

A high GFMV benefits you, A low one means you got to come up with more of a deposit but you can't get less than the GFMV. If the car is worth say, 5 K less than the GFMV it's not your problem unlike regular finance.

This is why the Skoda 0% interest isn't really 0% because of the lower GFMV and the lower mileage allowance. No finance company will give you money for nothing !

Lantus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If the GFMV is higher that goes towards your deposit or off excess mileage, but inmost cases the dealer will write off a few thousand Kms, shop around !

A high GFMV benefits you, A low one means you got to come up with more of a deposit but you can't get less than the GFMV. If the car is worth say, 5 K less than the GFMV it's not your problem unlike regular finance.

This is why the Skoda 0% interest isn't really 0% because of the lower GFMV and the lower mileage allowance. No finance company will give you money for nothing !

I think you have this the wrong way around. Dealers look at the market value vs the gfmv. Its the difference between the two you want as this is the equity moving into the next 3 years. If the car is worth 10k and the gfmv was 10k then there is no value or equity moving forwards.

Nissan can explain this to you and it has been explained exactly the same by 4 other manufacturers. That's how PCP works.

Skoda low gmfv is good as they correctly set this low to ensure that market value exceeds this in 3 years. If it was due to zero interest they would raise the gfmv and reduce a customers equity in 3 years time to force them to invest more money. That's bad business and shafts your customers so they don't do it. Vw bank is the reason why they can offer such good PCP deals. Nissan borrow from aib hence the high interest rate.

Lantus

Lantus wrote: »

I think you have this the wrong way around. Dealers look at the market value vs the gfmv. Its the difference between the two you want as this is the equity moving into the next 3 years. If the car is worth 10k and the gfmv was 10k then there is no value or equity moving forwards.

Nissan can explain this to you and it has been explained exactly the same by 4 other manufacturers. That's how PCP works.

Skoda low gmfv is good as they correctly set this low to ensure that market value exceeds this in 3 years. If it was due to zero interest they would raise the gfmv and reduce a customers equity in 3 years time to force them to invest more money. That's bad business and shafts your customers so they don't do it. Vw bank is the reason why they can offer such good PCP deals. Nissan borrow from aib hence the high interest rate.

Yeah, sorry I had this arse ways, what i meant was if the value of the car is higher than the GFMV then you have money towards the deposit on the next contract. Any lower it's Nissan's problem.

I suppose the lower Skoda GFMV has a greater chance of money towards the next deposit but it's not guaranteed, but the outcome might be the same in the sense if the Skoda GFMV is say, 10K and you get 12 K and the Leaf is 12K and you get 14K then you still get 2 K deposit. But of course this depends on what value is in the car at the end.

Who knows what changes will come down the line in regards E.U regulation to diesel emissions. Diesel value could take a nose dive, the death knell has already sounded for diesel. Question is will E.U legislators have the balls to finally act ? who knows but it has to happen sometime.

Lantus

Re diesel and all car testing they need to establish a real world test on cars being driven. This will need to include all the various options on cars like tyres and glass roofs which can effect weight and therefore emissions. The limits will need to be rolled back as aspiration does not match reality.

I doubt it will hit diesel that hard. Only people will ultimately suffer as the market is saturated by this type of car so punative measures by regulators or government will have a very negative effect on ordinary familues, jobs in the industry and the economy at large.

All manufacturers are fiddling these figures. Its odd that independant testing has not been extended to all manufacturers as most the technology is fairly similar.

Marcusm

Lantus wrote: »

I think you have this the wrong way around. Dealers look at the market value vs the gfmv. Its the difference between the two you want as this is the equity moving into the next 3 years. If the car is worth 10k and the gfmv was 10k then there is no value or equity moving forwards.

Nissan can explain this to you and it has been explained exactly the same by 4 other manufacturers. That's how PCP works.

Skoda low gmfv is good as they correctly set this low to ensure that market value exceeds this in 3 years. If it was due to zero interest they would raise the gfmv and reduce a customers equity in 3 years time to force them to invest more money. That's bad business and shafts your customers so they don't do it. Vw bank is the reason why they can offer such good PCP deals. Nissan borrow from aib hence the high interest rate.

The thing is that the effect of a low GMFV is only of value to lazy people, dealers and those expecting to stay with the same brand/dealer group at the end of the contract. Elsewise, the low GMFV is effectively an out of the market put option which is of very limited value compared to (what I expect) is priced into it. That being said, no one really believes markets are truly rational.

Well I'm just watching the news and saw they're reached a climate agreement, a 100 Billion fund in 2018 just to start , this is unbelievable madness. What will this cost us ? more carbon taxes and increased food costs no doubt, quality of life will ultimately be degraded for the average working person.

Hard to know whether this will do anything for diesel sales because as I say the E.U will insist the slightly lower Co2 output of Diesels far outweigh roasting the planet in over a 100 years time. The Lower Co2 output could be the excuse not to do anything at all to eliminate diesels as it's the easiest thing to do.

The E.U is that insane that it wouldn't surprise me if they tried to eliminate the higher Co2 emitting Petrols off the road instead !

What's the most likely scenario ? probably little will change, while there was a temperature agreement reached there was no agreement as to how they will do this. Probably buy carbon credits and everything stays the same only the tax payer suffers, as usual !

Marcusm

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I'm just watching the news and saw they're reached a climate agreement, a 100 Billion fund in 2018 just to start , this is unbelievable madness. What will this cost us ? more carbon taxes and increased food costs no doubt, quality of life will ultimately be degraded for the average working person.

Hard to know whether this will do anything for diesel sales because as I say the E.U will insist the slightly lower Co2 output of Diesels far outweigh roasting the planet in over a 100 years time. The Lower Co2 output could be the excuse not to do anything at all to eliminate diesels as it's the easiest thing to do.

The E.U is that insane that it wouldn't surprise me if they tried to eliminate the higher Co2 emitting Petrols off the road instead !

What's the most likely scenario ? probably little will change, while there was a temperature agreement reached there was no agreement as to how they will do this. Probably buy carbon credits and everything stays the same only the tax payer suffers, as usual !

Careful now; on a global basis, livestock farming produces more greenhouse gases (CO2 but especially ch4) than all transport sources and; proportionally, livestock farming is bigger in Ireland than on a global basis. That being said, livestock farming in Iteland is carbon neutral as the animals feed on pasture.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

Careful now; on a global basis, livestock farming produces more greenhouse gases (CO2 but especially ch4) than all transport sources and; proportionally, livestock farming is bigger in Ireland than on a global basis. That being said, livestock farming in Iteland is carbon neutral as the animals feed on pasture.

It's all Bull**it ! couldn't resist haha.

but it is really, next they will tax us for exhaling Co2 ! I wouldn't put it past them , it's all for the greater good you know, to save the planet !

Marcusm

Deleted User wrote: »

It's all Bull**it ! couldn't resist haha.

but it is really, next they will tax us for exhaling Co2 ! I wouldn't put it past them , it's all for the greater good you know, to save the planet !

It's not all bullshít although can often be misdirected. Europe as a continent consumes almost exactly the same number of barrels of oil per day now as it did in 1980, in theory. In reality, we've exported the increase in consumption to China as it's our workshop. Reduction in consumption and improvement in tech is always planet positive but I reckon it's not fairly distributed.

But what do I know; I have 2 petrol v8s and a 4-cyl.

The Higher the GFV the more likely someone is to go to a new contract by not wanting to pay xxxx on the car they've driven for 3 years which would go a long way towards paying for a new car.

The Lower the GFMV the more likely you might think about buying the car and maybe the higher GFMV in the Leaf might mean Nissan are predicting a high resale value because they want you to buy another car so they is going to be value in the car and if you think you're going to go well over the mileage then you'd be better to hop into a new car in 2 years if you can rather than fay a good few K in mileage penalties, or just buy the car at the end.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

It's not all bullshít although can often be misdirected. Europe as a continent consumes almost exactly the same number of barrels of oil per day now as it did in 1980, in theory. In reality, we've exported the increase in consumption to China as it's our workshop. Reduction in consumption and improvement in tech is always planet positive but I reckon it's not fairly distributed.

But what do I know; I have 2 petrol v8s and a 4-cyl.

Ireland produces enough food to feed 8 times our population, this in my view isn't sustainable, then we export this food half way around the world.

It's all mental. Farming is more about making money than feeding people, I know if they don't make money then they won't farm. it's a vicious circle !

I vote we invest this billions into R&D into Molten Salt Thorium Reactors, L.F.T.R

The world has thousands of years worth of clean energy screaming for us to use it.

Marcusm

Deleted User wrote: »

The Higher the GFV the more likely someone is to go to a new contract by not wanting to pay xxxx on the car they've driven for 3 years which would go a long way towards paying for a new car.

The Lower the GFMV the more likely you might think about buying the car and maybe the higher GFMV in the Leaf might mean Nissan are predicting a high resale value because they want you to buy another car so they is going to be value in the car and if you think you're going to go well over the mileage then you'd be better to hop into a new car in 2 years if you can rather than fay a good few K in mileage penalties, or just buy the car at the end.

And this misallocation of pricing is not for the benefit of an informed sensible purchaser! It supports lazy activity and getting on the renewal of a new PCP rather than a rational decision.

Marcusm

Deleted User wrote: »

Ireland produces enough food to feed 8 times our population, this in my view isn't sustainable, then we export this food half way around the world.

It's all mental. Farming is more about making money than feeding people, I know if they don't make money then they won't farm. it's a vicious circle !

I vote we invest this billions into R&D into Molten Salt Thorium Reactors, L.F.T.R

The world has thousands of years worth of clean energy screaming for us to use it.

Different countries have different natural strengths; Ireland's population density is low due to historic reasons (famine and continual emigration of fecund citizens) while it's ability to nurture food - both plant and flesh - is a strength to be exploited. We can't simply grow enough to eat anymore than people in less fertile areas (eg Saudi) can't grow enough but have other produce.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

And this misallocation of pricing is not for the benefit of an informed sensible purchaser! It supports lazy activity and getting on the renewal of a new PCP rather than a rational decision.

What are you talking about "lazy activity" ?

Marcusm

Deleted User wrote: »

What are you talking about "lazy activity" ?

The PCP ends up like a drug addiction; each 3 years the "lazy" will simply roll into a new model rather than considering their options. This is further copper bottomed by the "equity" in the car which is easier to access through the same marque/dealer model. All the while, the actual finance provided to the customer is less than it is asserted to be.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

The PCP ends up like a drug addiction; each 3 years the "lazy" will simply roll into a new model rather than considering their options. This is further copper bottomed by the "equity" in the car which is easier to access through the same marque/dealer model. All the while, the actual finance provided to the customer is less than it is asserted to be.

Well since I don't intend to keep the Leaf I don't need traditional finance or a bank loan.

My monthly payments are significantly less because I am not paying back based on the full amount of the car I don't want to own.

PCP gives you 3 years to think about whether you want to keep the car or not.

I see no problem if someone doesn't want to keep the car by going for PCP.

The danger here is that people who otherwise can't afford traditional means of finance would go on PCP thinking only about lower monthly payments and not thinking about the balloon at the end or the fact PCP is designed to keep you coming back.

But as an alternative to the traditional source of finance, PCP offers a really good alternative.

Marcusm

Deleted User wrote: »

The danger here is that people who otherwise can't afford traditional means of finance would go on PCP thinking only about lower monthly payments and not thinking about the balloon at the end or the fact PCP is designed to keep you coming back.
.

this plus those who cannot be bothered to budget properly or consider their options are precisely what I mean by lazy activity.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

this plus those who cannot be bothered to budget properly or consider their options are precisely what I mean by lazy activity.

Yeah, people do need to factor in needing a deposit or paying for excess mileage.

Quiet a lot of people don't really add up the cost of buying a new car then throwing petrol/diesel into the equation.

If they could see their monthly car payment + fuel on paper they might think twice.

fm

Deleted User wrote: »

The Higher the GFV the more likely someone is to go to a new contract by not wanting to pay xxxx on the car they've driven for 3 years which would go a long way towards paying for a new car.

The Lower the GFMV the more likely you might think about buying the car and maybe the higher GFMV in the Leaf might mean Nissan are predicting a high resale value because they want you to buy another car so they is going to be value in the car and if you think you're going to go well over the mileage then you'd be better to hop into a new car in 2 years if you can rather than fay a good few K in mileage penalties, or just buy the car at the end.

Nissan would be taking a big risk though if they are trying to predict higher resale values.I suppose the higher the gfmv can be a good thing for customers as they have less in payments to make so less interest costs

Lantus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah, people do need to factor in needing a deposit or paying for excess mileage.

Quiet a lot of people don't really add up the cost of buying a new car then throwing petrol/diesel into the equation.

If they could see their monthly car payment + fuel on paper they might think twice.

Total cost analysis is essential. Take the Skoda fabia for example which is a much better comparison than an Octavia. You can get this on PCP for 200-250 per month with very little deposit and do a fairly long daily commute plus tax and fuel and it will be cheaper than just a leaf on its own before tax and elec.

All cars are depreciating assets. They are not designed to last as long as we want to imagine. Manufacturers make no money from cars that last decades with modular components to allow for upgrade.

PCP offers a lit of benefits for consumers. They get to drive new, reliable cars with virtually no risk of large garage repair bills and enjoy low tax and fuel costs with a set monthly payment and the knowledge that after three years they get another new car. For a lot of people if you rely on car to drive a long way to work or pick up kids that is worth a lot. It makes life really easy.

Its got a lit more in common with mobile phones where people get contracts and pay a set fee knowing they will upgrade in two years to get the latest phone and start a new contract.

I have an old car and I've looked it up and its worth about 800quid. Not much benefit when I need to get a replacement. As I now have x kids and a long commute the idea of unpredictable massive garage bills is undesirable on an asset that has no real value long term.

The Fabia is not comparable to the leaf , the leaf motor is much more powerful despite it's 104 Hp rating, it;s bigger and probably better equipped.

Anyone can go buy a 14-15 K Hyundai I10 if you want cheap and potter about, or buy a 2nd hand leaf, the leaf will be a far better car and it's bigger.

You can buy cheap but it's not a like for like comparison.

The leaf has a lot of power, much more than the 1.4 TDI or 1.2 TFSI.

You can buy a manual car if you want for 16 k and spend the rest on petrol, the 6 K difference between that and the basic leaf would drive some people for years.

You can buy cheap but some people want more.

The Leaf can be got cheap on PCP also if you don't do mad mileage.

Lantus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The Fabia is not comparable to the leaf , the leaf motor is much more powerful despite it's 104 Hp rating, it;s bigger and probably better equipped.

Anyone can go buy a 14-15 K Hyundai I10 if you want cheap and potter about, or buy a 2nd hand leaf, the leaf will be a far better car and it's bigger.

You can buy cheap but it's not a like for like comparison.

The leaf has a lot of power, much more than the 1.4 TDI or 1.2 TFSI.

You can buy a manual car if you want for 16 k and spend the rest on petrol, the 6 K difference between that and the basic leaf would drive some people for years.

You can buy cheap but some people want more.

The Leaf can be got cheap on PCP also if you don't do mad mileage.

Its hard to compare any two cars but the leaf is in the mid size compact class. Its about the same size accordingley (fabia boot would be bigger!)

Leaf is an expensive car alright and its subsidised as well before a consumer gets to it. Its a very nice car and drive but people who buy 7 series BMWs would view a leaf as cheap trash so its all relative! I have driven a lot of cars recently including Dacia's which I thought were amazing to drive.

At the end of day you won't get people in leafs on pure economics just yet as they can drive cheaper cars. Unless they are currently driving more expensive cars like new golfs at which point it becomes a better prospect.

I compared over a dozen cars on total costs over three years and I'm happy that the new car I picked is the cheapest and a class beater and its petrol! I hope in future to go elec and the next gen batteries will change motoring, but not as much as autonomous cars.

Lantus

Lantus wrote: »

Its hard to compare any two cars but the leaf is in the mid size compact class. Its about the same size accordingley (fabia boot would be bigger!)

Is Fabia interior really the same size as Golf, Focus, Pulsar etc. etc. with an addition of a bigger boot? According to wikipedia that is not the case but if you are right Skoda engineers did a great job in packaging:

Fabia: Wheelbase 2,470 m Length 3,992 mm
Leaf: Wheelbase 2,700 mm Length 4,445 mm
Golf: Wheelbase 2,637 mm Length 4,255 mm

Edit. Actually the Leaf wheelbase is only 3 mm shorter than my previous car, a SAAB 9-5 (Wheelbase 2703 mm). No wonder that the interior is quite spacious even compared to it.

Lantus

samih wrote: »

Is Fabia interior really the same size as Golf, Focus, Pulsar etc. etc. with an addition of a bigger boot? According to wikipedia that is not the case but if you are right Skoda engineers did a great job in packaging:

Fabia: Wheelbase 2,470 m Length 3,992 mm
Leaf: Wheelbase 2,700 mm Length 4,445 mm
Golf: Wheelbase 2,637 mm Length 4,255 mm

Edit. Actually the Leaf wheelbase is only 3 mm shorter than my previous car, a SAAB 9-5 (Wheelbase 2703 mm). No wonder that the interior is quite spacious even compared to it.

Interior no and never claimed it was. Did think boot was bigger than leaf but not on hatch it seems after checking. To me all these cars are very similar. If you want a big boot as a priority there are lots if cars that offer bundles if space. No need to compromise with any if the above. Just get the Octavia!

Leaf interior is very good especially the rear I thought anyway. Economics driven by need. If I needed to transport 4 people every day then rear space would be critical but its a blue moon anyone except an under 5 gets in the back. Vast majority of commuters travel alone.

The Leaf appears much smaller than it is due to the shape of it. It looks like a supermini size car from the distance but it's an optical illusion due to the extra height the under floor battery pack requires. Took me a while to figure that out. It's a good bit bigger car than a Golf.

And yeah, the boot is quite good as the battery pack doesn't extend past the base of the rear seat. The only compromise really is the toe room for the rear seat passengers as there is very little space between the floor and the front seats. The rear seat is a good bit higher than the fronts so visibility is good from the back.

nokia69

Nissan need to put the motor and controller of the Leaf between the wheels like the Model S

then they can have storage in the front as well as the back

cros13

nokia69 wrote: »

Nissan need to put the motor and controller of the Leaf between the wheels like the Model S

then they can have storage in the front as well as the back

They stacked up the inverter, motor and charger because it allowed them to fit the whole assembly using the same equipment that fits engines on existing lines for ICE vehicles.

That allows them a lot of production flexibility and reduced tooling costs.

steelboots

I was watching a youtube video of someone taking the "engine" apart from a crashed one, and it consisted on 3 layers from top to bottom 1) The charging unit 2) The inverter 3) The motor. Couldn't help but think the charging unit and inverter could have been kept lower and there by making space up front.

It would have been nice to have space up front for the cable and other bits and bobs...

It would mean a new chassis, and it would alter production too much but it would be worth it imo.

From looking at the pics of the 60 Kwh it looks like assembly will be pretty much the same for Leaf II, it will have a different chassis but I doubt it will change a lot.

steelboots

steelboots wrote: »

I was watching a youtube video of someone taking the "engine" apart from a crashed one, and it consisted on 3 layers from top to bottom 1) The charging unit 2) The inverter 3) The motor. Couldn't help but think the charging unit and inverter could have been kept lower and there by making space up front.

It would have been nice to have space up front for the cable and other bits and bobs...

It was done that way to keep production costs low by making it on the same assembly line as the petrol and diesel cars, the only thing different is installing the battery.

BoatMad

Just a comment to several posters.

Building equity in a car by having an arbitrarily low GMFV is great for the dealer as it encourages unthinking re purchase.

But at 7.9 % you are funding that equity in a very expensive way, there is no free lunch. For example, simply putting the difference aside over the three years would generate equity at zero finance.

I notice from my latest quote , the SV , cold pack 16 MY , 6kwh charger 30 kWh battery , is now just under 25k and that's INCLUDES. 4K scrapage and the GMFV has been lowered by nearly 1000 euros from early November ( when 16 pricing was released )

Again Nissan are " forcing " you into lower GMFV PCPS because it aids re-purchase. ( and let's the dealer price 2nd hands lower too ) there is obviously a concern in Nissan Ireland then 2nd leafs are too expensive as a result of higher GMFV and that's causing 2nd hand resale issues.

Furthermore , there is an incredible difference in the penalty of taking a lower mileage pcp and accepting the 10 cents a km penalty over going for a larger mileage pcp. The former is twice as expensive as the later for no good reason.

All in all a very expensive car on a expensive finance deal.

PCP is designed for people who like to change their car every 3 years and it's a pretty good alternative to traditional bank loan or finance.

At the time last January the interest on a bank loan or finance wasn't cheaper and I intend to get a new car in 2018 so it made even more sense for me.

The lower GFMV does suggest that they have it set up that you're guaranteed to have a larger deposit in 3 years which is good for you if you intend to change in 3 years.

The higher GFMV means you're also unlikely to pay the lump sum and change but it's also designed that you have a deposit at the end or what's the point ?

Anyone who fears PCP can just take out a bank loan or go with normal finance over 5 years and trade in in 3 or pay off sooner if you wish, chances are the interest will be far higher than PCP over the 3 years.

PCP works for me because the payments are about 300 Euro's less than bank loan of finance and interest at the time wasn't different to bank loan or finance so it made little sense for me to go the traditional route since I'm not keeping the car and my monthly payments are much lower.

Sounds to me like you should have saved up and waited until 2018 for the 300-350 Km Leaf.

If someone wants to have the 3 years to think if they want to keep the car or not then all they have to do is add the deposit, and the monthly payments + the GFMV and that is the total cost to buy, then compare to bank loan or finance and this is what I did last year, PCP worked out about the same , so the benefits of bank loan or finance made even less sense for me last January.

In other words, PCP wasn't more expensive to buy out the car by paying the balloon, the only difference is that to re-finance the balloon could work out more expensive or maybe it won't if the interest is cheaper at that end of the contract.