Used car pricing in a high inflation / fuel prices world - Page 3 - Porsche General - PistonHeads UK

Toying with the idea of a new Porsche. While I appreciate no one holds a crystal ball has anyone come across proper research (articles, forum posts/tracking, or anything else) that shows what happens to Porsche used car pricing when fuel bills & inflation are rising. There is quite a lot of research out there for general cars but nothing in the sports car category.

Think we can quite confidently say the rule book has been rewritten over the last few years... what has been the case previously cannot be relied on in the future IMO. YMMV.

A Porsche will be one of the best places for your money guaranteed.

OP, the biggest consideration is the supply (or rather lack of) until we've had 12 months of car factories operating at near normal levels we won't really have an idea of what is "normal". Personally I do think the cars enthusiasts buy whether you call them sports, super or classic cars will do okay....preferably naturally aspirated with three pedals. I just really struggle to see how manufacturers can really get people excited about electric cars for a Sunday morning drive or driving round the NC500?

I swore never to sell again unless I really have to ... mainly because the 2 times I sold a car, it was both times at the bottom This week sold my Challenge car and trailer plus some of the others might follow. I think it will be only a matter of time (say 5 years) until cars that are not true collector cars (I.e. the stuff bought and stored in museum-like spaces by rich guys and brought to invitation only car shows) will drop quite substantially - rising rates will quickly lead to people selling off cars that they don’t need (probably to invest the money into something that generates a return again) and rising costs for petrol, tax as well as restrictions on where you can drive will make it more of a pain. I think that can then quickly turn into a self fulling prophecy, market drops, people suddenly don’t feel so good about their cars that cost them thousands in service and insurance every year anymore and then the drop accelerates I am not selling because of any of the above though, I am selling as I don’t have storage space for my trailer anymore/my contract was cancelled plus I need the money to have some equity for a potential house purchase (to live in) and finally - after a few 5-digit bills in a row it gets old if your income cratered due to covid and a recovery is now looking unlikely. To me it sometimes reads like People talk about the car market like people spoke about new economy shares pre dot-com bubble bursting. I would take the positive and the negative with a big dollop of salt, but on a car forum the positive sentiments with a slightly bigger one as car guys usually don’t hope the market completely craters given they likely own one or two cars/are generally interested in them while the majority of people are not. I drove 1,900 km this week and for the first time I did not take my primary car choice for the trip due to the additional petrol cost - that might play into it a little at some point / people taking fewer drives just for driving’s sake (probably a good thing for the environment, so I’d be happy with that) Good luck with your decision - I think there was a thread about car pricing recently / I posted something similar then / that might have some more opinions, but I don’t think there was hard data

Sadly….I think you’re spot on with most of that….

These ‘doom glass’ threads always make me smile. Contrary to the outlook on here I’d say the world won’t end for ICE in 2030 and these targets are more than likely to get kicked into the long grass as the whole net zero push becomes politically more and more unpalatable. Regarding the current bubble you’ll have to see values for the regular stuff start to wane which I don’t think is anywhere near happening yet since the fundamentals still haven’t really changed that much. Do we have reduced demand? I don’t think so yet. Do we have increased supply? Not really as far as I can see but happy to be corrected by anyone closer to the business. Until either of those factors changes prices should remain stable. I do think you’ll see more and more price rises coming through on new as inflation starts to bite which will also offset any collapse in used prices. ICE demand will continue for as long as EVs remain inferior. Now if they actually build an EV that has an equivalent ICE range and is under three tonnes in weight then we should start to worry. At that point the sea direction changes completely, and is the time to pick your future classics wisely.

We are not really talking about EVs replacing the cars though, that is a topic if discussing mainstream cars. My point was regarding increasing costs and difficulty to use in combination with inflation (And increasing rates) driven aspects making the ownership proposition less palatable for people who don’t “need” a discretionary third or fourth car. They might keep their favourite one and sell the rest, which could well have a big impact on (mainstream) weekend cars. I usually think about GT3 demand in that context - how come hardly anybody (relatively speaking) bought 996 and 997 GT3s and GT2s - is it really only because the new cars are so much more useable/drivable, or is it maybe driven by the fact they no longer loose value like a normal Carrera (for the time being anyway). We have had a low interest, expansionary monetary policy for a very long time now, but that was not always the case and will not continue to be the case forever… how many cars are owned on some type of debt vehicle, will doubling rates impact that? It feels like a lot are financed in the UK with all that talk about monthlies, but not sure that applies to weekend cars as well I buy my cars with the view that anything I get back if I ever have to sell is a bonus - effectively like a TV with very high running costs. That way I don’t have to worry about the market all that much, but i still find the dynamics interesting. Am sure somebody smarter than I am can make a very good argument why prices of weekend cars will continue to grow and most people are enthusiasts and therefore don’t see them as a tax free way to store some money / won’t shift their funds to other investment classes - and for obvious reasons I would be very happy if that is what the future holds given I don’t really plan to buy any cars but a large percentage of my net worth is currently in cars, would be nice to get some of that back b increasing prices making up for increasing mileage on my cars (and if the figure grows a little I’d obviously be ecstatic) Back on topic - Maybe there are some charts of the early 90s car prices vs rising rates development? That might at least give something similar. Need to go for a drive now. Have a good start to the weekend

Anyone who is confident they can guess which way this will go is wrong IMHO. You will always get confirmation bias on PH for prices going up but there are too many variables to be sure of this. Actually, though, I don't care as for most of us one nice weeked ICE sports/GT car is not enough of our net wealth for it to matter materially. Back on track, I will have a BEV for family/daily duties in a few years time. I'm waiting for solid state batteries but even if these take longer than expected - and they have so far - I'm confident that the tech will be better in 2025/26 when I make the choice. As for weekend cars, I see lots of us wanting noise, gears, revs and relatively low weight cars to drive for fun but point and shoot high performance BEVs and creeping LEZs will gradually impact on this demand. How it relates to the overall supply of sports/GT cars is unclear but the move to electrification is happening a lot faster than many expected and having a performance car with a tailpipe could be socially unacceptable within a decade.

MrVert said: Sadly….I think you’re spot on with most of that…. Unfortunately I also agree 100%

MDL111 said: Back on topic - Maybe there are some charts of the early 90s car prices vs rising rates development? That might at least give something similar. Need to go for a drive now. Have a good start to the weekend Early 90's we were coming off a ludicrous car bubble though....when you think of average earnings at the time and the prices which were in real terms probably higher than today it was utterly mental. I think looking to the future given how difficult it is to enjoy cars on the roads are cars which are great to drive at 60 mph on country roads....so much less power and weight than a modern car. I think it is unlikely we get a re-rating of national speed limit roads to less than 60 mph for a while so those are the ones you need to look to have fun on. For me that probably means cars from say the early 2000's backwards.

Lexington59 said: These ‘doom glass’ threads always make me smile. Contrary to the outlook on here I’d say the world won’t end for ICE in 2030 and these targets are more than likely to get kicked into the long grass as the whole net zero push becomes politically more and more unpalatable. Regarding the current bubble you’ll have to see values for the regular stuff start to wane which I don’t think is anywhere near happening yet since the fundamentals still haven’t really changed that much. Do we have reduced demand? I don’t think so yet. Do we have increased supply? Not really as far as I can see but happy to be corrected by anyone closer to the business. Until either of those factors changes prices should remain stable. I do think you’ll see more and more price rises coming through on new as inflation starts to bite which will also offset any collapse in used prices. ICE demand will continue for as long as EVs remain inferior. Now if they actually build an EV that has an equivalent ICE range and is under three tonnes in weight then we should start to worry. At that point the sea direction changes completely, and is the time to pick your future classics wisely. I think you are wrong on just about every point .... - EVs are already taking a foothold. have you driven one as your everyday car? Way superior to ICE for 95% of people already. Price needs to come down. It will, especially with petrol prices rising (which outstrip kWh price increases). - This whole range thing is a non starter. you don't need 300 mile plus range. We do need need a better charging infrastructure. Porsche has just announced that they are building their own network in Germany and a few other countries - Climate change isn't going way. the younger generation care about it a lot. The fall out from Ukraine will accelerate a low carbon future - Inflation will soon be 7%. You think your classics and used sportscars will appreciate by 7% pa? Not a chance (apart from those uber collectables). the vast majority of sub £75k ICE cars are going to lose value, a lot of value. - By driving a ICE in 2030 you will become a social pariah. Like smoking. Have you seen what cities are already doing for clean air? - Manual cars will go the way of a choke. Soon anyone learning to drive won't know how to use gears let alone be bothered to learn. - Once the tipping point passes, ICE will become the hunted. Some, like you (and me) will hang on to our gears and clutches, but we will be the minority and we will pay dearly for the privilege because we are relatively wealthy - Talking of which ... we are going to have a lot less 'wealthy' people who can afford nice sports cars 'doom glass'. I say wake up and smell the coffee.

James44 said: Lexington59 said: These ‘doom glass’ threads always make me smile. Contrary to the outlook on here I’d say the world won’t end for ICE in 2030 and these targets are more than likely to get kicked into the long grass as the whole net zero push becomes politically more and more unpalatable. Regarding the current bubble you’ll have to see values for the regular stuff start to wane which I don’t think is anywhere near happening yet since the fundamentals still haven’t really changed that much. Do we have reduced demand? I don’t think so yet. Do we have increased supply? Not really as far as I can see but happy to be corrected by anyone closer to the business. Until either of those factors changes prices should remain stable. I do think you’ll see more and more price rises coming through on new as inflation starts to bite which will also offset any collapse in used prices. ICE demand will continue for as long as EVs remain inferior. Now if they actually build an EV that has an equivalent ICE range and is under three tonnes in weight then we should start to worry. At that point the sea direction changes completely, and is the time to pick your future classics wisely. I think you are wrong on just about every point .... - EVs are already taking a foothold. have you driven one as your everyday car? Way superior to ICE for 95% of people already. Price needs to come down. It will, especially with petrol prices rising (which outstrip kWh price increases). - This whole range thing is a non starter. you don't need 300 mile plus range. We do need need a better charging infrastructure. Porsche has just announced that they are building their own network in Germany and a few other countries - Climate change isn't going way. the younger generation care about it a lot. The fall out from Ukraine will accelerate a low carbon future - Inflation will soon be 7%. You think your classics and used sportscars will appreciate by 7% pa? Not a chance (apart from those uber collectables). the vast majority of sub £75k ICE cars are going to lose value, a lot of value. - By driving a ICE in 2030 you will become a social pariah. Like smoking. Have you seen what cities are already doing for clean air? - Manual cars will go the way of a choke. Soon anyone learning to drive won't know how to use gears let alone be bothered to learn. - Once the tipping point passes, ICE will become the hunted. Some, like you (and me) will hang on to our gears and clutches, but we will be the minority and we will pay dearly for the privilege because we are relatively wealthy - Talking of which ... we are going to have a lot less 'wealthy' people who can afford nice sports cars 'doom glass'. I say wake up and smell the coffee. Aha another EVangelist! It is a religion. I particularly enjoyed your high handed presumption that EVs work perfectly for that magical “95% of people” just plucked out of the air and that I don’t need a 300 mile range either. Thanks for that, I am glad so many EVangelists are around to tell us plebs what to do. Also, anyone who drives ICE in 2030 will be socially ostracised and thrown in jail? Hilarious. Still, at least one benefit of the mess in the Ukraine is shelving the virtue signalling eco wokeist nonsense by giving everyone free reign to go back to fossil fuel based power generation including coal. Charging those EVs is only going to get cleaner. Every cloud and all that…

James44 said: I think you are wrong on just about every point .... - EVs are already taking a foothold. have you driven one as your everyday car? Way superior to ICE for 95% of people already. Price needs to come down. It will, especially with petrol prices rising (which outstrip kWh price increases). - This whole range thing is a non starter. you don't need 300 mile plus range. We do need need a better charging infrastructure. Porsche has just announced that they are building their own network in Germany and a few other countries - Climate change isn't going way. the younger generation care about it a lot. The fall out from Ukraine will accelerate a low carbon future - Inflation will soon be 7%. You think your classics and used sportscars will appreciate by 7% pa? Not a chance (apart from those uber collectables). the vast majority of sub £75k ICE cars are going to lose value, a lot of value. - By driving a ICE in 2030 you will become a social pariah. Like smoking. Have you seen what cities are already doing for clean air? - Manual cars will go the way of a choke. Soon anyone learning to drive won't know how to use gears let alone be bothered to learn. - Once the tipping point passes, ICE will become the hunted. Some, like you (and me) will hang on to our gears and clutches, but we will be the minority and we will pay dearly for the privilege because we are relatively wealthy - Talking of which ... we are going to have a lot less 'wealthy' people who can afford nice sports cars 'doom glass'. I say wake up and smell the coffee. Hmm , Hunted yes like Predator ;j when the time comes some of us just have to get to the choppa n this case ..fast ICE 911 car On a serious note I think you are correct and it is what it is

James44 said: I think you are wrong on just about every point .... - EVs are already taking a foothold. have you driven one as your everyday car? Way superior to ICE for 95% of people already. Price needs to come down. It will, especially with petrol prices rising (which outstrip kWh price increases). - This whole range thing is a non starter. you don't need 300 mile plus range. We do need need a better charging infrastructure. Porsche has just announced that they are building their own network in Germany and a few other countries - Climate change isn't going way. the younger generation care about it a lot. The fall out from Ukraine will accelerate a low carbon future - Inflation will soon be 7%. You think your classics and used sportscars will appreciate by 7% pa? Not a chance (apart from those uber collectables). the vast majority of sub £75k ICE cars are going to lose value, a lot of value. - By driving a ICE in 2030 you will become a social pariah. Like smoking. Have you seen what cities are already doing for clean air? - Manual cars will go the way of a choke. Soon anyone learning to drive won't know how to use gears let alone be bothered to learn. - Once the tipping point passes, ICE will become the hunted. Some, like you (and me) will hang on to our gears and clutches, but we will be the minority and we will pay dearly for the privilege because we are relatively wealthy - Talking of which ... we are going to have a lot less 'wealthy' people who can afford nice sports cars 'doom glass'. I say wake up and smell the coffee. Truly hilarious, especially your extremely wide of the mark points about sub £75k ice car depreciation, social pariahs and manual cars becoming less popular.

Taffy66 said: MrVert said: Sadly….I think you’re spot on with most of that…. Unfortunately I also agree 100% Me too But I think it’s worse than that. The UK motorist has always been, and will increasingly so, be a soft target when it comes to raising revenue for our esteemed government. Put simply, a lot of us will accept considerable financial pain for the privilege of going where we want to go, when we want to go, and doing so without having to use public transport. Regrettably the government know this, and takes advantage of it. I doubt they’ll be a ban on using ICE vehicles anytime soon, but the costs levied by the government to use them will become unsustainable for many. Rightly or wrongly, I remain unconvinced that the petrol and diesel prices we’re currently being forced to pay are actually indicative of what crude oil currently costs, or indeed any perceived supply issues, they’re more indicative of what the industry thinks it can get away with, and not helped by a government happy to let them do as much, because any increases in cost only serve to bolster the laughable amounts of tax revenue the government raise from fuel sales. Not content with the amounts of revenue raised from fuel, the ICE car driver will no doubt be forced to pay increased RFL duty, or be charged by the mile, and pay exorbitant fees to use their cars in towns and cities (if indeed they’re allowed to). ICE engined cars won’t be banned, they’ll merely be taxed off the roads for many owners enthusiasts.

Slippydiff said: Me too But I think it’s worse than that. The UK motorist has always been, and will increasingly so, be a soft target when it comes to raising revenue for our esteemed government. Put simply, a lot of us will accept considerable financial pain for the privilege of going where we want to go, when we want to go, and doing so without having to use public transport. Regrettably the government know this, and takes advantage of it. I doubt they’ll be a ban on using ICE vehicles anytime soon, but the costs levied by the government to use them will become unsustainable for many. Rightly or wrongly, I remain unconvinced that the petrol and diesel prices we’re currently being forced to pay are actually indicative of what crude oil currently costs, or indeed any perceived supply issues, they’re more indicative of what the industry thinks it can get away with, and not helped by a government happy to let them do as much, because any increases in cost only serve to bolster the laughable amounts of tax revenue the government raise from fuel sales. Not content with the amounts of revenue raised from fuel, the ICE car driver will no doubt be forced to pay increased RFL duty, or be charged by the mile, and pay exorbitant fees to use their cars in towns and cities (if indeed they’re allowed to). ICE engined cars won’t be banned, they’ll merely be taxed off the roads for many owners enthusiasts. Lots of logic to this. What gets me on PH is how so many people are closed to the debate and just assume that they will be allowed to drive/be able to afford their ICE performance cars. Those who raise the question about not knowing where this will go are regularly shot down with blind faith that what we want to drive will continue. We are all petrolheads but we are a small sub-set of society. One thing I had seen with a work hat on is that technological change has been massively accelerated by Covid. Buying a new 250g co2/km sports car is going to quickly change to be very rare. I'm getting out of an Italian V8 into a new Carrera (if it ever arrives) but actually a new 'cheap' 911 is likely a bad choice on a 5-10 year view as it is not special enough to be held in high estem by those who are prepared to keep driving performance ICE cars once VED and fuel duty goes north. Those on here with rarer, more special ICE cars (probably pre GPFs) will likely do ok but the next generation are not as invested in tailpipe emission cars. Increasingly the hassle I get from people when I overtake in my Granturismo with bypass valves open might not be worth it. At least the Carrera sounds crap so that will not be an issue!

Lexington59 said: Aha another EVangelist! It is a religion. I particularly enjoyed your high handed presumption that EVs work perfectly for that magical “95% of people” just plucked out of the air and that I don’t need a 300 mile range either. Thanks for that, I am glad so many EVangelists are around to tell us plebs what to do. Also, anyone who drives ICE in 2030 will be socially ostracised and thrown in jail? Hilarious. Still, at least one benefit of the mess in the Ukraine is shelving the virtue signalling eco wokeist nonsense by giving everyone free reign to go back to fossil fuel based power generation including coal. Charging those EVs is only going to get cleaner. Every cloud and all that… 95% of people? No way. Is EV better than ICE 95% of the time? Probably. But I have kept some interesting ICE for the other 5%. Best of both worlds. As for free reign to go back to fossil fuel. Nonsense. Enjoy your petrol while you can.

It is an interesting subject this. I suspect 3 yrs time values of most used cars will have dropped back more likely to their norm ie. Depreciation from driving off the forecourt. Interest rates will rise maybe not to 2006 levels but they will rise and people losing money on sports cars supercars etc will put off some of the speculators and short term owners plus the gen z types arent into ice cars plus add in green issues and Gov taxes steadily increasing... It all points to most cars dropping. I keep my modern classics for fun not for investment, they are my hobby and passion and I accept it costs money to play. The amount of debt average Joe is taking to finance cars has fuelled this bull run but when you are dropping probably 10k plus on interest and losing 20k on depreciation, my guess is the masses will cut their consumption of expensive cars.

- EVs are already taking a foothold. have you driven one as your everyday car? Way superior to ICE for 95% of people already. Price needs to come down. It will, especially with petrol prices rising (which outstrip kWh price increases). Wrong they are not , have driven a Nissan Leaf and a Tesla S so either end of the scale and both are horrid - This whole range thing is a non starter. you don't need 300 mile plus range. We do need need a better charging infrastructure. Porsche has just announced that they are building their own network in Germany and a few other countries thats quite an assumption maybe you dont maybe I dont some people do - Climate change isn't going way. the younger generation care about it a lot. The fall out from Ukraine will accelerate a low carbon future No such thing & I dont care about the younger generation - Inflation will soon be 7%. You think your classics and used sportscars will appreciate by 7% pa? Not a chance (apart from those uber collectables). the vast majority of sub £75k ICE cars are going to lose value, a lot of value. Cars are for fun not investment - By driving a ICE in 2030 you will become a social pariah. Like smoking. Have you seen what cities are already doing for clean air? Being classed as a social pariah by a load of morons is not something that bothers me - Manual cars will go the way of a choke. Soon anyone learning to drive won't know how to use gears let alone be bothered to learn. You sure ? - Once the tipping point passes, ICE will become the hunted. Some, like you (and me) will hang on to our gears and clutches, but we will be the minority and we will pay dearly for the privilege because we are relatively wealthy Whatever - Talking of which ... we are going to have a lot less 'wealthy' people who can afford nice sports cars This I agree on

EC2 said: Lots of logic to this. What gets me on PH is how so many people are closed to the debate and just assume that they will be allowed to drive/be able to afford their ICE performance cars. Those who raise the question about not knowing where this will go are regularly shot down with blind faith that what we want to drive will continue. We are all petrolheads but we are a small sub-set of society. One thing I had seen with a work hat on is that technological change has been massively accelerated by Covid. Buying a new 250g co2/km sports car is going to quickly change to be very rare. I'm getting out of an Italian V8 into a new Carrera (if it ever arrives) but actually a new 'cheap' 911 is likely a bad choice on a 5-10 year view as it is not special enough to be held in high estem by those who are prepared to keep driving performance ICE cars once VED and fuel duty goes north. Those on here with rarer, more special ICE cars (probably pre GPFs) will likely do ok but the next generation are not as invested in tailpipe emission cars. Increasingly the hassle I get from people when I overtake in my Granturismo with bypass valves open might not be worth it. At least the Carrera sounds crap so that will not be an issue! We may be a small subset of society but we do exist because ICE is fundamental to the workings of society and the economy. The question is if those fundamentals will change. Eventually it’s about “everyone”, not people who can choose between a 911 or a Taycan, and I’m not convinced “everyone” or “everything” can or will adopt EVs anytime soon and they/we will not accept being taxed to oblivion as a result. I’m not sure governments can forever maintain a large gap in tax revenue between EVs and non EVs either or that it will be socially acceptable tbh. To get back on topic, I do think now is a fairly risky time to buy. You either have early EVs or strangled ICE. You have to assume EVs will be better in a few years and ICE was definitely better a few years ago. You’d imagine like you say that the older ICE will do ok because they can no longer be made like that, the rest not sure. Or maybe people will replace the GPF’s with more open exhausts etc? We’re otherwise in a strange time when you will mostly notice a powerful car accelerating because the tyres sound stressed.

EC2 said: Slippydiff said: Me too But I think it’s worse than that. The UK motorist has always been, and will increasingly so, be a soft target when it comes to raising revenue for our esteemed government. Put simply, a lot of us will accept considerable financial pain for the privilege of going where we want to go, when we want to go, and doing so without having to use public transport. Regrettably the government know this, and takes advantage of it. I doubt they’ll be a ban on using ICE vehicles anytime soon, but the costs levied by the government to use them will become unsustainable for many. Rightly or wrongly, I remain unconvinced that the petrol and diesel prices we’re currently being forced to pay are actually indicative of what crude oil currently costs, or indeed any perceived supply issues, they’re more indicative of what the industry thinks it can get away with, and not helped by a government happy to let them do as much, because any increases in cost only serve to bolster the laughable amounts of tax revenue the government raise from fuel sales. Not content with the amounts of revenue raised from fuel, the ICE car driver will no doubt be forced to pay increased RFL duty, or be charged by the mile, and pay exorbitant fees to use their cars in towns and cities (if indeed they’re allowed to). ICE engined cars won’t be banned, they’ll merely be taxed off the roads for many owners enthusiasts. Lots of logic to this. What gets me on PH is how so many people are closed to the debate and just assume that they will be allowed to drive/be able to afford their ICE performance cars. Those who raise the question about not knowing where this will go are regularly shot down with blind faith that what we want to drive will continue. We are all petrolheads but we are a small sub-set of society. One thing I had seen with a work hat on is that technological change has been massively accelerated by Covid. Buying a new 250g co2/km sports car is going to quickly change to be very rare. I'm getting out of an Italian V8 into a new Carrera (if it ever arrives) but actually a new 'cheap' 911 is likely a bad choice on a 5-10 year view as it is not special enough to be held in high estem by those who are prepared to keep driving performance ICE cars once VED and fuel duty goes north. Those on here with rarer, more special ICE cars (probably pre GPFs) will likely do ok but the next generation are not as invested in tailpipe emission cars. Increasingly the hassle I get from people when I overtake in my Granturismo with bypass valves open might not be worth it. At least the Carrera sounds crap so that will not be an issue! Umm closed to the debate , Really ? , I have thought about this and have decided I dont agree with climate change views but the minute I voice my opinion I get shut down along the lines of im a worse person than Adolf Hitler , doesnt feel like a debate to me As for being allowed you will be happy to live in authoritarian state ?

Charlie_1 said: Umm closed to the debate , Really ? , I have thought about this and have decided I dont agree with climate change views but the minute I voice my opinion I get shut down along the lines of im a worse person than Adolf Hitler , doesnt feel like a debate to me As for being allowed you will be happy to live in authoritarian state ? If we get on climate change then this thread could run and run! I agree with you that society is increasingly closed to debate and many 'givens' are viewed as fact when science can contradict itself decades and centuries later. I tend to assess where things are going in a given area and use this to inform my choices, it does not mean that I agree with things necessarily. My point from a PH members perspective is that many of us don't see the rate of change away from ICE because we don't agree with it and/or really like the engagement which a big engined ICE car offers whereas most people don't care beyong Apple Car Play, a nice sat nav and bling wheels. I'm just choosing which special ICE car I want to keep for the next 20 year understanding that my daily driving will move to a BEV in a few years time whether I want it to or not. BTW we have always lived in a authoritarian state, it's just that historically this was not really understood. Personally I think that anglo saxon democracy has failed but we will bounce along for a few more decades before a better model emerges.

James44 said: - EVs are already taking a foothold. have you driven one as your everyday car? Way superior to ICE for 95% of people already. Price needs to come down. It will, especially with petrol prices rising (which outstrip kWh price increases). - This whole range thing is a non starter. you don't need 300 mile plus range. We do need need a better charging infrastructure. Porsche has just announced that they are building their own network in Germany and a few other countries - Climate change isn't going way. the younger generation care about it a lot. The fall out from Ukraine will accelerate a low carbon future - Inflation will soon be 7%. You think your classics and used sportscars will appreciate by 7% pa? Not a chance (apart from those uber collectables). the vast majority of sub £75k ICE cars are going to lose value, a lot of value. - By driving a ICE in 2030 you will become a social pariah. Like smoking. Have you seen what cities are already doing for clean air? - Manual cars will go the way of a choke. Soon anyone learning to drive won't know how to use gears let alone be bothered to learn. - Once the tipping point passes, ICE will become the hunted. Some, like you (and me) will hang on to our gears and clutches, but we will be the minority and we will pay dearly for the privilege because we are relatively wealthy - Talking of which ... we are going to have a lot less 'wealthy' people who can afford nice sports cars 'doom glass'. I say wake up and smell the coffee. When I first read your post my first thought was what is wrong with you, but unfortunately you are more right than wrong. The EV thing is going to happen, does it make sense, not really on many levels but the shepherds have decided what field we need to be in and that is where we are going. We have 3 cylinder ICEs today that run on fumes, they are not taking the planet down. Gone are the days when you follow a diesel van chucking tons of shid out the back. It is almost as if we have already solved the problem but then decided to keep going to solve a problem that no longer exists, the bottom line is EVs are coming ICEs are going, regardless. I suspect keeping the price of fuel artificially high is helping the plan no end, remember Rishi only gave back 5p of the extra 30p he is currently getting. Like you say the younger generation have already accepted (brainwashed?) it is the future so all they have to do is get rid of old fossils like me, easily done. ICE cars will be priced off the road, simple as that. Now I know that on PH mentioning money is seen as a sign of weakness but the bottom line is that unless people are idiots there will come a price point where they will walk away from them. They (I) won’t be guilted into it, I don’t give a shid what people think about what I drive, never have, but when it gets to the point when going out for a drive costs stupid money I will feel daft doing it even if I can afford it. The only reason I own a sportscar is to go out in it when I want, where I want, how I want. I do not want a car telling me which way I need to go or where I have to stop, the EV philosophy is already at odds with that. When it becomes silly money to do it I will get rid of it and drive a milk float to get from A to B like the rest of the sheep. No doubt the likes of Porsche will fine tune an EV to sound more like a blender than a microwave but for me that is like choosing to be stabbed instead of being shot. Yes there will always be museum pieces you sometimes see on the road but the days of hooning about in ICE sportscars cars will soon be over – shame because there will be so many that will never know what they missed out on.

EC2 said: If we get on climate change then this thread could run and run! I agree with you that society is increasingly closed to debate and many 'givens' are viewed as fact when science can contradict itself decades and centuries later. I tend to assess where things are going in a given area and use this to inform my choices, it does not mean that I agree with things necessarily. My point from a PH members perspective is that many of us don't see the rate of change away from ICE because we don't agree with it and/or really like the engagement which a big engined ICE car offers whereas most people don't care beyong Apple Car Play, a nice sat nav and bling wheels. I'm just choosing which special ICE car I want to keep for the next 20 year understanding that my daily driving will move to a BEV in a few years time whether I want it to or not. BTW we have always lived in a authoritarian state, it's just that historically this was not really understood. Personally I think that anglo saxon democracy has failed but we will bounce along for a few more decades before a better model emerges. Well that was a more reasoned reply than I expected so thank you for that and the first sentence is brilliant. I know I shouldnt be so angsty but I have come to a position but over the last few years whenever I say what I think at best I get ignored or at worse get abuse and im sort of getting to the point of if im going to be treated as an outcast im going to behave like one , yes its a battle I will lose I guess , but it will give me some satisfaction when im forced to live in the eco world thats coming (which will be worse than hell) that I didnt give in Yes its always been an authoritarian state but it seems it getting worse , George Orwell etc This is an odd conversation for a car forum but enjoyed it so once again thanks

One variable that hasn't been considered so far is converting existing ICE cars to electric. Two minutes on Google will take you to several videos of well-converted cars that may, well, convert a lot of people. At the moment it's prohibitively expensive- about £20k for an MX5, I understand- but as performance and battery costs come down then conversions also become more viable, particularly if government is canny and subsidises them a little. Don't forget that the push to consider climate change is also about recycling and upcycling. What could be more appropriate than converting one's ageing ICE car to an electric drivetrain to reduce waste and the carbon footprint of scrappage? It's currently too expensive and too heavy but I imagine that time will soon come. If I owned a performance vehicle where the engine were less important to the whole event than other parts f the experience- say, a Mégane RS- then a conversion along the lines of a restomod might be extremely interesting. £20-25k to own a Nissan Leaf or (hopefully) £10k to update a hot hatch that you already love? That's got to be a growth industry for the 2030s, surely?

blearyeyedboy said: Don't forget that the push to consider climate change is also about recycling and upcycling. Perfectly good relatively "clean" vehicles will end up being scrapped for no other reason other than this obsession to bring in EVs. The only way they will get the general public to buy EVs is to price the ICEs off the road. There will be people today whose use of an EV makes financial sense, but I suspect they are still in the minority given what they cost to buy. I don't know anyone personally who has saved money by buying one.

981Boxess said: erfectly good relatively "clean" vehicles will end up being scrapped for no other reason other than this obsession to bring in EVs. Yes, *and* a market in conversions will emerge. They're not mutually exclusive.

blearyeyedboy said: 981Boxess said: Perfectly good relatively "clean" vehicles will end up being scrapped for no other reason other than this obsession to bring in EVs. Yes, *and* a market in conversions will emerge. They're not mutually exclusive. Ones that are done to a good engineering standard are, watch Vintage Voltage and tell me they are conversions you would be happy to own.

981Boxess said: nes that are done to a good engineering standard are, watch Vintage Voltage and tell me they are conversions you would be happy to own. That's a straw man argument. That said, I can point to a plethora of poor classic car restorations in response. That doesn't mean the good guys aren't out there. I readily admit that the conversion market will be for a minority but it will exist. Plenty of classic car owners fit disc brakes or power steering to keep their loved vehicles relevant and drivable in the modern era, and the restomod scene is vibrant. This will become another strand in the restomod scene or for commercial reasons. (e.g., It might be viable for expensive old machinery that is driven short distances or where a classic vehicle like a Traction Avant acts like a mobile billboard for a company)

Conversion to electric will certainly be interesting in about, say, 15 to 20 years when (you'd think / hope) battery energy density is about 2-3x what it is today and you can have proper range and more performance than the original ICE powertrain for about the same weight. Plus infinitely superior reliability and simpler maintenance. Right now, the batteries are very big and very heavy and in this context (squeezing something into a relatively small classic car) provide fairly pathetic real-world range. Conversion costs ought, you'd also assume, to come down quite a bit as batteries and motors get much cheaper over that longer time frame. Don't think conversions with current tech are terribly compelling, but further out will only become more interesting, albeit you're always going to lose quite a bit of charm and involvement versus ICE.

I would have thought the exact opposite will happen. The regulations are tied to the age of the chassis so you can take an old chassis and do whatever you want with it so you can (with some significant effort as of now) take an old car and modernise it with a screaming ICE drivetrain of your choosing without having to worry about particulate filters or average CO2 emissions or pedestrian safety and all that fun stuff. It gives you an enormous advantage over cars that need to meet today’s standards. Why waste that chassis on an EV conversion? You can just buy an EV that was made as an EV and they will only get better. I suspect someone will figure out how to take a common but not very valuable car like a Ford Focus and ship it off somewhere cheap to get it stripped and then automate the building of another car on top that is completely free of the constraints of today’s regulations. If a ban on new ICE actually happens then it will be a way to work around it also.

blearyeyedboy said: I readily admit that the conversion market will be for a minority but it will exist. Plenty of classic car owners fit disc brakes or power steering to keep their loved vehicles relevant and drivable in the modern era, and the restomod scene is vibrant. This will become another strand in the restomod scene or for commercial reasons. (e.g., It might be viable for expensive old machinery that is driven short distances or where a classic vehicle like a Traction Avant acts like a mobile billboard for a company) As a business model converting ICE vehicles into EVs is a dead duck. They are buying drive units at retail/trade money as a starting point, compared to the likes of Tesla that build untold numbers of them to use for a fraction of the price. It simply costs too much to do it properly and what you will end up with will be inferior to a factory EV. Whilst you will always get the odd eco warrior who may choose to indulge themselves, as the ones in Vintage Voltage, I doubt it will ever grow to anything more than that.

DMZ said: I suspect someone will figure out how to take a common but not very valuable car like a Ford Focus and ship it off somewhere cheap to get it stripped and then automate the building of another car on top that is completely free of the constraints of today’s regulations. If a ban on new ICE actually happens then it will be a way to work around it also. I think the more likely outcome will be cars will be shipped out to places that don't give a toss about global warming and run them into the ground on the cheap. We already have it going on with cars in London which are not ULEZ compliant going up north where they don't have an idiotic Mayor whose only interest seems to be in killing vehicles off and finding a way to deliver fridges (eg) by pushbike.

981Boxess said: Yes there will always be museum pieces you sometimes see on the road but the days of hooning about in ICE sportscars cars will soon be over – shame because there will be so many that will never know what they missed out on. I really like your thought process and it's difficult to argue. The question is what you think "soon" is? 2 years? 5? 10? Also, equestrianism is still going, many decades after the demise of the horse and cart. Can you see ICE sports cars still being used on track days in say, 20 years time? (I appreciate they won't be made then whereas the supply of horses seems secure )

esotericar said: Don't think conversions with current tech are terribly compelling, but further out will only become more interesting, albeit you're always going to lose quite a bit of charm and involvement versus ICE. True, but it was ever thus with restomods.

981Boxess said: s a business model converting ICE vehicles into EVs is a dead duck. They are buying drive units at retail/trade money as a starting point, compared to the likes of Tesla that build untold numbers of them to use for a fraction of the price. It simply costs too much to do it properly and what you will end up with will be inferior to a factory EV. Whilst you will always get the odd eco warrior who may choose to indulge themselves, as the ones in Vintage Voltage, I doubt it will ever grow to anything more than that. Of course converted EVs will be objectively inferior to new EVs. If that's all there was to being an enthusiast though, there'd be no classic car scene. If small volumes made businesses "dead ducks" then the classic scene would be rather lost too. A modern Octavia vRS is faster, more fuel efficient and more reliable than a MK1 Jag E Type. But it sure as hell isn't more desirable.

blearyeyedboy said: Of course converted EVs will be objectively inferior to new EVs. If that's all there was to being an enthusiast though, there'd be no classic car scene. If small volumes made businesses "dead ducks" then the classic scene would be rather lost too. A modern Octavia vRS is faster, more fuel efficient and more reliable than a MK1 Jag E Type. But it sure as hell isn't more desirable. The majority of classic car owners spend fortunes to keep them exactly as they were back in the day. A mate of mine has a Mk2 Jag and I had to twist his arm up his back to let me put a Lumenition on it for him, because it wasn't original. If you asked him if he would consider converting it to an EV he would be dialling 111 and describing your symptoms. Yes there is the restomod thing but there is a vast difference between making a car more user friendly than converting it to an EV.

I think we'll just have to conclude that we won't agree, 981Boxess.

981Boxess said: s a business model converting ICE vehicles into EVs is a dead duck. They are buying drive units at retail/trade money as a starting point, compared to the likes of Tesla that build untold numbers of them to use for a fraction of the price. It simply costs too much to do it properly and what you will end up with will be inferior to a factory EV. Whilst you will always get the odd eco warrior who may choose to indulge themselves, as the ones in Vintage Voltage, I doubt it will ever grow to anything more than that. Would disagree. The batteries and drive units are only going to get cheaper and cheaper. That aspect of the conversion - the cost of the hardware - will be a relative non issue in time. In any case, the price of a Tesla isn't terribly relevant to the price of a converted classic. Nor is the comparative utility of the end product. In other words, it doesn't matter if the Tesla is faster and has longer range. People aren't cross shopping a Model 3 with a converted 1970s 911. What matters is if the end product is good enough. If you could offer a converted old 911 with 500 miles range and quick charging, it won't matter how much a Tesla costs and whether it does 800 miles. People aren't going to be comparing the two and choosing the Tesla due to superior range or acceleration. People spend £500k on fancy 911 restomods. They spend millions on even more exotic restomods. The cost of a decent battery, motor and control electronics isn't that big a deal even today in that context. In 20 years, it will be a relatively small part of the cost of conversion.

esotericar said: Would disagree. The batteries and drive units are only going to get cheaper and cheaper. That aspect of the conversion - the cost of the hardware - will be a relative non issue in time. In any case, the price of a Tesla isn't terribly relevant to the price of a converted classic. Nor is the comparative utility of the end product. In other words, it doesn't matter if the Tesla is faster and has longer range. People aren't cross shopping a Model 3 with a converted 1970s 911. What matters is if the end product is good enough. If you could offer a converted old 911 with 500 miles range and quick charging, it won't matter how much a Tesla costs and whether it does 800 miles. People aren't going to be comparing the two and choosing the Tesla due to superior range or acceleration. People spend £500k on fancy 911 restomods. They spend millions on even more exotic restomods. The cost of a decent battery, motor and control electronics isn't that big a deal even today in that context. In 20 years, it will be a relatively small part of the cost of conversion. Thoughtful and thought-provoking post. EV 'white goods' vs an electric drive with character. I know what I'd prefer for enjoying 'special journeys'. And, as you say, the economics ought to be favourable.

esotericar said: People spend £500k on fancy 911 restomods. They spend millions on even more exotic restomods. The cost of a decent battery, motor and control electronics isn't that big a deal even today in that context. In 20 years, it will be a relatively small part of the cost of conversion. I know quite a few people who own classic cars, without exception they have them to almost live in a time gone by. They are not interested in the efficiency or the performance of the vehicles they are only interested in it being the same as it was back in the day. I dare say if you chuck enough money at it you could turn one into an EV and do a half decent job of it but you are missing the point they don't want that.

981Boxess said: know quite a few people who own classic cars, without exception they have them to almost live in a time gone by. They are not interested in the efficiency or the performance of the vehicles they are only interested in it being the same as it was back in the day. I dare say if you chuck enough money at it you could turn one into an EV and do a half decent job of it but you are missing the point they don't want that. Think you are wrong about that. Yes, the classic market prizes 'originality' very highly. But that's in a context where using an ICE is easy and the norm. That will no longer be the case and it will become far more compelling to convert them. One day, very likely you won't be realistically be able to do that Euro tour in an ICE car because they'll be banned from too many cities etc, maybe even some countries. So, practically speaking if you want to tour in a classic, quite possibly it'll need to be converted. The closest you'll get to that time gone by will be a converted classic. Plus, ultimately, classic cars come down to style, nostalgia and projecting status, some mix of those elements. The driving bit is mostly secondary. Most classics are pretty awful to drive. They'll mostly be better once converted. Classics with really rewarding powertrains are the exception.

av185 said: A Porsche will be one of the best places for your money guaranteed. Yep. Unless we're talking a 3 grand Boxster abandoned in the front garden of a council house then your average Porsche owner isn't going to be selling up because their heating bill has doubled.

esotericar said: 981Boxess said: I know quite a few people who own classic cars, without exception they have them to almost live in a time gone by. They are not interested in the efficiency or the performance of the vehicles they are only interested in it being the same as it was back in the day. I dare say if you chuck enough money at it you could turn one into an EV and do a half decent job of it but you are missing the point they don't want that. Think you are wrong about that. Yes, the classic market prizes 'originality' very highly. But that's in a context where using an ICE is easy and the norm. That will no longer be the case and it will become far more compelling to convert them. One day, very likely you won't be realistically be able to do that Euro tour in an ICE car because they'll be banned from too many cities etc, maybe even some countries. So, practically speaking if you want to tour in a classic, quite possibly it'll need to be converted. The closest you'll get to that time gone by will be a converted classic. If that turns out to be the case in my time I can tell you now I won't be bothering to do it, having done it the other way I would get nothing out of the trip.

esotericar said: Think you are wrong about that. Yes, the classic market prizes 'originality' very highly. But that's in a context where using an ICE is easy and the norm. That will no longer be the case and it will become far more compelling to convert them. One day, very likely you won't be realistically be able to do that Euro tour in an ICE car because they'll be banned from too many cities etc, maybe even some countries. So, practically speaking if you want to tour in a classic, quite possibly it'll need to be converted. The closest you'll get to that time gone by will be a converted classic. Plus, ultimately, classic cars come down to style, nostalgia and projecting status, some mix of those elements. The driving bit is mostly secondary. Most classics are pretty awful to drive. They'll mostly be better once converted. Classics with really rewarding powertrains are the exception. Point is though there is nothing rewarding about electric cars , they are sh!t , and yes I have driven one, for a whole bloody day ,

Charlie_1 said: oint is though there is nothing rewarding about electric cars , they are sh!t , and yes I have driven one, for a whole bloody day , As it stands I agree with you as a driving experience. However it seems that manufacturers have focused on family cars for their EV offerings. Granted, the noise of a performance ICE family car will be a massive plus, but apart from that are they that much better than their "equivalent" EV? The RS6 is over 2 tons of high COG and high polar moment of inertia compared to its EV equivalent for starters. Perhaps when those markets are saturated they will turn their attention to more fun focused smaller offerings while still using the skateboard architecture. That doesn't resolve the noise issue but might be worth the wait nonetheless...

981Boxess said: esotericar said: People spend £500k on fancy 911 restomods. They spend millions on even more exotic restomods. The cost of a decent battery, motor and control electronics isn't that big a deal even today in that context. In 20 years, it will be a relatively small part of the cost of conversion. I know quite a few people who own classic cars, without exception they have them to almost live in a time gone by. They are not interested in the efficiency or the performance of the vehicles they are only interested in it being the same as it was back in the day. I dare say if you chuck enough money at it you could turn one into an EV and do a half decent job of it but you are missing the point they don't want that. The thing for me is if you have a classic like I do with no electronic anything, no power steering and no servo on the brakes to take the engine out and slap an EV motor in there is totally changing the character of the car. You're not just changing the engine you're changing the character and crucially the balance of the car. If you're taking out the engine you may as well have servo brakes and will probably want power steering because of the weight that's been added. You're then left with a car that in some aspects will drive like a modern car but in many other ways won't....and lets face it most people drive old cars because of their character...not just looks. When I drive my car hard and the engines barking at me that's why I drive it....I don't want a classic cars that sounds like a milk float.

Cheib said: The thing for me is if you have a classic like I do with no electronic anything, no power steering and no servo on the brakes to take the engine out and slap an EV motor in there is totally changing the character of the car. You're not just changing the engine you're changing the character and crucially the balance of the car. If you're taking out the engine you may as well have servo brakes and will probably want power steering because of the weight that's been added. You're then left with a car that in some aspects will drive like a modern car but in many other ways won't....and lets face it most people drive old cars because of their character...not just looks. When I drive my car hard and the engines barking at me that's why I drive it....I don't want a classic cars that sounds like a milk float. Finally, somebody who gets it.

981Boxess said: inally, somebody who gets it. It's not about anyone "not getting it", it's about different preferences in a world where not everyone thinks in the same way. There are people who'd choke on their coffee at the thought of fitting modern tyres, and there are people who'd wire in a PlayStation 5 to a Jag XK120 without seeing the horror on everyone else's face. Most of us are between those two extremes. There's a range of opinions and preferences out there. Yours is only one of them. If you're part of a community of like-minded people, that's great and I wish you ask power to your engines. If others think differently though, they ought be free to do so too. Yours is not the only tribe. Other tribes exist that you don't need to go to war with. Peaceful acknowledgement of other tribes is OK.

The problem as I see it is that because with current battery technology the weight of the power train is far more dictated by range than it is power, the raison d’etre behind a low slung sportscar becomes less compelling. Hence why at road legal speeds there’s little reason not to choose a 4 seat body style and have convenience with your performance. It’s a bit like the 80s when hot hatches started out dragging Porsche’s at road legal speeds, only losing out at much higher mph. Now that didn’t destroy the sports car market but we are decreasingly tolerant of speeding so I’m not sure the sports car market will fare as well this time. Why buy a 2 seat hybrid coupe when you can have a mild SUV which weighs and performs the same? In the meantime classic ICE cars will become like horses, an expensive weekend hobby for those with the funds and passion/ commitment to indulge them. Putting an EV power train in a classic body does nothing for me, I want my EV to look like it came from the future not the past, but there’s room for all thoughts on this! Edited by Slippydiff99 on Friday 1st April 09:10

blearyeyedboy said: It's not about anyone "not getting it", it's about different preferences in a world where not everyone thinks in the same way. There are people who'd choke on their coffee at the thought of fitting modern tyres, and there are people who'd wire in a PlayStation 5 to a Jag XK120 without seeing the horror on everyone else's face. Most of us are between those two extremes. There's a range of opinions and preferences out there. Yours is only one of them. If you're part of a community of like-minded people, that's great and I wish you ask power to your engines. If others think differently though, they ought be free to do so too. Yours is not the only tribe. Other tribes exist that you don't need to go to war with. Peaceful acknowledgement of other tribes is OK. I meant finally somebody gets what I am trying to explain, not saying my opinion is the only one that counts or matters.

blearyeyedboy said: Yours is not the only tribe. Other tribes exist that you don't need to go to war with. Peaceful acknowledgement of other tribes is OK. I would be happy to do this but the EV tribe are quite evangelistic and seem to think they have some sort of moral high ground but they dont and im fed up with people trying to push me around and telling me im bad if I dont join in

Charlie_1 said: I would be happy to do this but the EV tribe are quite evangelistic and seem to think they have some sort of moral high ground but they dont and im fed up with people trying to push me around and telling me im bad if I dont join in A good mate of mine keeps telling me how much money he is saving having bought his £70k ipace, I am not going to be the one to break the bad news. Leave them to it.

981Boxess said: Finally, somebody who gets it. Everybody understands that part of the appeal of classics is related to the particular charms of ICE powertrains. I just happen to disagree that will prevent conversions to EV tech from becoming quite popular. If we get to the point where it's really hard to use a combustion classic because, say, they're banned from many town and city centres, you can't tour Europe in them, maybe petrol stations become scarce or fuel preposterously expensive, I think conversions will be very popular. For sure, the hardware required is only going to get cheaper and better. Sure, some will totally loose interest if the engine's gone. But in reality most classics don't have very good powertrains even in a classic car context and with EV conversion will be more reliable and usable and deliver what I dare say most people want, something that looks charming and nostalgic but without worrying about the thing pissing its coolant somewhere in rural France and being trailered back to the UK. Will have to wait quite a few years to see how it plays out. Personally, I think in 20 years there will be loads of classics converted to battery electric. OK, not 250 SWB Competiziones. But a wheezy old 911T that not all that long ago / before the market went silly you'd struggle to get someone to pay money for? I can see plenty of cars like that being converted. I don't think that will make for a fabulous driver's car. But then nor did the original!

Interesting thread and I have a vested interest here as to whether I keep my 987.2 Cayman long term. I do want to keep it and although I’m happy to pay more for the privilege of driving it, I do have an upper limit which will cause me to sell it. On the subject of EV powertrains in classics, would it be possible to retain a clutch and manual gearbox and just substitute the ICE bit for an electric motor? Maybe even configure the motor to produce less torque at low revs to match an NA engine’s torque curve? It would go some way to providing a bit more driver involvement.

esotericar said: 981Boxess said: Finally, somebody who gets it. Everybody understands that part of the appeal of classics is related to the particular charms of ICE powertrains. I just happen to disagree that will prevent conversions to EV tech from becoming quite popular. Fair enough, time will tell.

981Boxess said: know quite a few people who own classic cars, without exception they have them to almost live in a time gone by. They are not interested in the efficiency or the performance of the vehicles they are only interested in it being the same as it was back in the day. I dare say if you chuck enough money at it you could turn one into an EV and do a half decent job of it but you are missing the point they don't want that. Completely agree with you. I drive an ipace as my work hack. It's a really impressive bit of kit and perfect as a daily drive - fast, comfortable and relatively cheap to run. My weekend toys, including a 911, are different in lots of respects and I appreciate that!

981Boxess said: meant finally somebody gets what I am trying to explain, not saying my opinion is the only one that counts or matters. Fair play. Sorry if I've come across as prickly; I've enjoyed the discussion and it's nice to disagree without things going all like the NP&E part of PH. Thanks for the discussion while still being friendly.

There are cars, in my opinion, for which loss of the original powertrain would be no hardship. K-series powered cars? RX8s? Pretty much worthless in some cases and could be given a new lease of life...

Charlie_1 said: Its becoming clear that you arent an expert when it comes to reading let try to simplify it, what I know about climate is irrelevant but I can read I have searched and found a variety of opinions unlike you who has just listened to the loudest noise , overwhelming doesnt mean right and my basis to disagree is that I can say these other people/experts say you are wrong so in fact im just listening to different experts or are you telling me that I cant choose a side in a debate ? because you are wrong No, it is you who isn't reading what I have posted. You are repeating yourself and not addressing the points I made. And I have not just listened to the 'loudest noise'. I am merely aware in rough terms of the expert consensus on the subject. Which is that the climate is changing and that there is a substantial anthropogenic dimension to that change. As I said before, you can choose any side of any debate you want to. You can decide that the majority of surgeons are doing a procedure wrong. You can decide that the majority of climate scientists have got climate change wrong. But you can't make those decisions from an informed position and without looking foolish. You are not an expert and you are not in a position to do that. What you need to do is explain why, as a non-expert, you know better than surgeons, and chip engineers and climate scientists. In a final attempt to try to get this idea across to you, I'll assume you have an occupation and that you are expert in some degree regarding some elements of that activity. Imagine somebody who did not work in the same field and who had no with no expertise and experience told you that they knew better than you about those aspects of your occupation in which you are expert because they had read something. Were you to cross examine this person, you would quickly find that their knowledge of the subject was very obviously superficial and they had no deep understanding. But they insisted that they knew better. That person is you. You are not expert in climate science. Your knowledge is superficial. But you think you know better. And it's an incredibly stupid thing to think.

esotericar said: Charlie_1 said: Its becoming clear that you arent an expert when it comes to reading let try to simplify it, what I know about climate is irrelevant but I can read I have searched and found a variety of opinions unlike you who has just listened to the loudest noise , overwhelming doesnt mean right and my basis to disagree is that I can say these other people/experts say you are wrong so in fact im just listening to different experts or are you telling me that I cant choose a side in a debate ? because you are wrong No, it is you who isn't reading what I have posted. You are repeating yourself and not addressing the points I made. And I have not just listened to the 'loudest noise'. I am merely aware in rough terms of the expert consensus on the subject. Which is that the climate is changing and that there is a substantial anthropogenic dimension to that change. As I said before, you can choose any side of any debate you want to. You can decide that the majority of surgeons are doing a procedure wrong. You can decide that the majority of climate scientists have got climate change wrong. But you can't make those decisions from an informed position and without looking foolish. You are not an expert and you are not in a position to do that. What you need to do is explain why, as a non-expert, you know better than surgeons, and chip engineers and climate scientists. In a final attempt to try to get this idea across to you, I'll assume you have an occupation and that you are expert in some degree regarding some elements of that activity. Imagine somebody who did not work in the same field and who had no with no expertise and experience told you that they knew better than you about those aspects of your occupation in which you are expert because they had read something. Were you to cross examine this person, you would quickly find that their knowledge of the subject was very obviously superficial and they had no deep understanding. But they insisted that they knew better. That person is you. You are not expert in climate science. Your knowledge is superficial. But you think you know better. And it's an incredibly stupid thing to think. No im not saying I personally know better that would be silly but I am saying there are experts that do disagree and on refection I agree with them , you mention surgeons well luckily I havent been in that situation but should I ever be I would want a second opinion , you seem very keen on the 'expert' thing well as far as it goes I work in IT, a system analyst the senior system analyst in fact and sometimes I get it wrong not often but I do , being an expert isnt a guarantee ,in an odd way I have enjoyed this conversation because at least you put up a reasoned point of view , usually I get near an ecomentalist they get quite abusive

Some spectacular leaps of logic in this thread, especially concluding that what the negative impact of reliance on Russian fossil fuels proves is that reliance on fossil fuels is a good thing. Mental.

Charlie_1 said: o im not saying I personally know better that would be silly but I am saying there are experts that do disagree and on refection I agree with them Which means you think you know better than the majority. You've decided most climate scientists are wrong and to side with a small minority on the basis of no expertise. By definition, if you don't think you know better than the majority, you can't decide they're wrong and someone else is right. None of this is to say that the consensus is definitely right. Of course, it may not be. But any non expert disagreeing with the consensus does so from a position of ignorance. You are simply not in a position to have an informed dissenting view. You have a right to an opinion should it come to it your vote in any democratic decision on the subject, but no right for your opinion to be informed or carry any weight in any other context. Which it isn't and doesn't. It's an irrelevant and uninformed opinion to which you have every right. Personally, I don't really agree or disagree with the consensus - my views on that are irrelevant, I'm not sufficiently informed. I just recognise that the consensus is the best available position from a non-expert perspective, and realise I'm not in a position to dispute the core substance of the consensus. I'd be fairly moderate in terms of using that consensus to form real-world policy. I'm not going to just tear everything up on the basis of a single scientific consensus. I recognise that consensus is just that, consensus, not objective fact. But equally, to not just ignore the consensus but to decide it's wrong from a position of ignorance is just plain stupid and delusional. The only rational approach from a position of ignorance is to support moderate and measured steps to mitigate the threat posed by the consensus view on climate change while balancing that against other interests.

Fink-Nottle said: Reading this thread has inspired me to commission a tin-foil wrap for my Cayman. The RSPCA would not like.

Lexington59 said: James44 said: Lexington59 said: These ‘doom glass’ threads always make me smile. Contrary to the outlook on here I’d say the world won’t end for ICE in 2030 and these targets are more than likely to get kicked into the long grass as the whole net zero push becomes politically more and more unpalatable. Regarding the current bubble you’ll have to see values for the regular stuff start to wane which I don’t think is anywhere near happening yet since the fundamentals still haven’t really changed that much. Do we have reduced demand? I don’t think so yet. Do we have increased supply? Not really as far as I can see but happy to be corrected by anyone closer to the business. Until either of those factors changes prices should remain stable. I do think you’ll see more and more price rises coming through on new as inflation starts to bite which will also offset any collapse in used prices. ICE demand will continue for as long as EVs remain inferior. Now if they actually build an EV that has an equivalent ICE range and is under three tonnes in weight then we should start to worry. At that point the sea direction changes completely, and is the time to pick your future classics wisely. I think you are wrong on just about every point .... - EVs are already taking a foothold. have you driven one as your everyday car? Way superior to ICE for 95% of people already. Price needs to come down. It will, especially with petrol prices rising (which outstrip kWh price increases). - This whole range thing is a non starter. you don't need 300 mile plus range. We do need need a better charging infrastructure. Porsche has just announced that they are building their own network in Germany and a few other countries - Climate change isn't going way. the younger generation care about it a lot. The fall out from Ukraine will accelerate a low carbon future - Inflation will soon be 7%. You think your classics and used sportscars will appreciate by 7% pa? Not a chance (apart from those uber collectables). the vast majority of sub 75k ICE cars are going to lose value, a lot of value. - By driving a ICE in 2030 you will become a social pariah. Like smoking. Have you seen what cities are already doing for clean air? - Manual cars will go the way of a choke. Soon anyone learning to drive won't know how to use gears let alone be bothered to learn. - Once the tipping point passes, ICE will become the hunted. Some, like you (and me) will hang on to our gears and clutches, but we will be the minority and we will pay dearly for the privilege because we are relatively wealthy - Talking of which ... we are going to have a lot less 'wealthy' people who can afford nice sports cars 'doom glass'. I say wake up and smell the coffee. Aha another EVangelist! It is a religion. I particularly enjoyed your high handed presumption that EVs work perfectly for that magical “95% of people” just plucked out of the air and that I don’t need a 300 mile range either. Thanks for that, I am glad so many EVangelists are around to tell us plebs what to do. Also, anyone who drives ICE in 2030 will be socially ostracised and thrown in jail? Hilarious. Still, at least one benefit of the mess in the Ukraine is shelving the virtue signalling eco wokeist nonsense by giving everyone free reign to go back to fossil fuel based power generation including coal. Charging those EVs is only going to get cleaner. Every cloud and all that… “virtue signalling eco wokeist” - Pulitzer grade!!

Reading this thread makes it very clear why govt policy follows a two pronged approach. Carrots (tax benefits, grants etc) for those who get it and are able to make the change to EVs, and sticks (banning ICE etc) for those who don't. It's the people who get it but can't afford it / do it practically that I feel sorry for.

The thing that climate deniers don’t seem to get is that it doesn’t matter whether they’re wrong or not - nobody of any power or influence thinks they’re any more credible than flat-Earthers. May as well howl at the moon, they’re not going to change policy.

Discombobulate said: Reading this thread makes it very clear why govt policy follows a two pronged approach. Carrots (tax benefits, grants etc) for those who get it and are able to make the change to EVs, and sticks (banning ICE etc) for those who don't. It's the people who get it but can't afford it / do it practically that I feel sorry for. Im sorry get what ? , can you prove to me 100% that 'man made' climate change is a fact and just saying that a large group people say so does not make it a fact ,

otolith said: The thing that climate deniers don’t seem to get is that it doesn’t matter whether they’re wrong or not - nobody of any power or influence thinks they’re any more credible than flat-Earthers. May as well howl at the moon, they’re not going to change policy. in a way I agree with you its disappointing that people read the 'worlds going to end' headline and stop thinking , if they did and we all stood together and told those in power to foxtrot oscar they are going arrest 10,20 50 million people ?

Charlie_1 said: m sorry get what ? , can you prove to me 100% that 'man made' climate change is a fact and just saying that a large group people say so does not make it a fact , Does it necessarily make it untrue though?

Charlie_1 said: otolith said: The thing that climate deniers don’t seem to get is that it doesn’t matter whether they’re wrong or not - nobody of any power or influence thinks they’re any more credible than flat-Earthers. May as well howl at the moon, they’re not going to change policy. in a way I agree with you its disappointing that people read the 'worlds going to end' headline and stop thinking , if they did and we all stood together and told those in power to foxtrot oscar they are going arrest 10,20 50 million people ? The problem you will have there is that your view is not that of the majority. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

"Half of the public (51%) said they think that climate change is either entirely (13%) or mainly (38%) caused by human activity, consistent with the levels observed in March 2020." A pretty thin majority ! And that's the issue... The alarmists are always very quick to jump onto that argument, when in reality the debate is very far from settled, as we can see clearly from this thread.

Demhcs said: "Half of the public (51%) said they think that climate change is either entirely (13%) or mainly (38%) caused by human activity, consistent with the levels observed in March 2020." A pretty thin majority ! And that's the issue... The alarmists are always very quick to jump onto that argument, when in reality the debate is very far from settled, as we can see clearly from this thread. Actually, if you dig into the report, it's 51% "entirely" or "mainly" caused by human activity, and 84% "entirely", "mainly" or "partly". It's 1% "no such thing", 4% "entirely natural" and 6% "mainly natural" - so the number you need to contrast with the 51% who say "entirely or mainly human" is the 11% who don't believe in it or think its' "entirely or mainly natural"

nickfrog said: Does it necessarily make it untrue though? No it doesnt but as I say it certainly doesnt make it true either

blearyeyedboy said: There are cars, in my opinion, for which loss of the original powertrain would be no hardship. K-series powered cars? RX8s? Pretty much worthless in some cases and could be given a new lease of life... The Rover K series engine is a masterpiece in certain applications such as my Lotus 340R. I wouldn't put any other engine in it whatsoever!!

Charlie_1 said: o it doesnt but as I say it certainly doesnt make it true either The reason you think it's not true is because you have some in-built bias for which you seek confirmation. You're not in a position to take an informed rational view based on the science. Neither is anyone else who is not an expert in the field. You have every right to a view, of course. But by objective definition it's a view based on ignorance and bias, not informed understanding. I do actually understand why people are turned off by some of the shrill and excessive messaging of the climate lobby. Many of them go well beyond science and rationality with their claims. But the fact that some people make hysterical overstatements not backed by the science doesn't change the fact that the large majority of experts are in consensus and one which you dismiss on the basis of no expertise. Like I said before, it would be easier to respect your dismissal of the expert consensus on climate science if you applied it consistently. Stop using modern technology, which depends on expert consensus, stop using modern medicine, and so on. Pretty much everything we depend on in modern life is possible thanks to the same scientific method and consensus building that has coalesced around the current analysis of climate change. But you dismiss all that and think you know better based on no expert knowledge or understanding. If it is just you that ends up dying on this ridiculous hill of proudly holding ignorant views, that would be fine. The problem is that if enough people are stupid and ignorant, it could have a very negative impact on everybody else.

esotericar said: If it is just you that ends up dying on this ridiculous hill of proudly holding ignorant views, that would be fine. The problem is that if enough people are stupid and ignorant, it could have a very negative impact on everybody else. What a load of sanctimonious bulls t. People should feel free to question this so called "consensus". Alarmists are similar to the wokeists in trying to silence contrary views; and that is not really a healthy debate.

Anyone think that this thread might be better placed in NP&E given the way it is headed?

esotericar said: The reason you think it's not true is because you have some in-built bias for which you seek confirmation. You're not in a position to take an informed rational view based on the science. Neither is anyone else who is not an expert in the field. You have every right to a view, of course. But by objective definition it's a view based on ignorance and bias, not informed understanding. I do actually understand why people are turned off by some of the shrill and excessive messaging of the climate lobby. Many of them go well beyond science and rationality with their claims. But the fact that some people make hysterical overstatements not backed by the science doesn't change the fact that the large majority of experts are in consensus and one which you dismiss on the basis of no expertise. Like I said before, it would be easier to respect your dismissal of the expert consensus on climate science if you applied it consistently. Stop using modern technology, which depends on expert consensus, stop using modern medicine, and so on. Pretty much everything we depend on in modern life is possible thanks to the same scientific method and consensus building that has coalesced around the current analysis of climate change. But you dismiss all that and think you know better based on no expert knowledge or understanding. If it is just you that ends up dying on this ridiculous hill of proudly holding ignorant views, that would be fine. The problem is that if enough people are stupid and ignorant, it could have a very negative impact on everybody else. Afternoon you are back , didnt you say yourself that you dont have the expertise either so how is your view more valid than mine , i will make it clear its not , you seem think people are incapable of making informed decision's based on provided researched information they should just believe what they are told , clearly its you thats ignorant and I certainly dont want morons like you deciding for me , Modern technology based on consensus you are completely and utterly clueless and that is something I do have some knowledge of , Medicine well once again from reading I'm going to disagree Thalidomide wasn't the expert consensus that it was good for pregnant women , try to stop focusing on the world ending (its not) spend some time reading see if you can form a balanced view , be a whole new experience for you , by the way I don't need anyone to confirm my views I'm what you would call 101% self confident

blearyeyedboy said: There are cars, in my opinion, for which loss of the original powertrain would be no hardship. K-series powered cars? RX8s? Pretty much worthless in some cases and could be given a new lease of life... K series Elises and Caterhams are still worth a chunk, and a lot of the appeal of the K series is its lightness. Don't really see the attraction of a converted RX-8 - everything good about the car comes from the engine, if you stuck half a ton of batteries over the front wheels you'd lose the point of the thing. I think picking notably light/compact engines is probably the wrong approach. Something with a boat anchor of an engine is probably a better bet.

Charlie_1 said: fternoon you are back , didnt you say yourself that you dont have the expertise either so how is your view more valid than mine I never said my view on climate change is valid. You just made that up. I very clearly said I don't take a view and I'm not in a position to disagree with the consensus from an informed perspective. Neither are you. What I am saying is that your dissent with the consensus scientific view as a non expert is based on ignorance, delusions of intellectual grandeur and stupidity. You know absolutely nothing of substance that puts you in a position to disagree with the consensus. It is chronic bias that leads you to do so. You want something else to be true, so you look for things to confirm that bias and ignore a consensus you are not in a position to judge. And it's very, very silly. Charlie_1 said: Modern technology based on consensus you are completely and utterly clueless and that is something I do have some knowledge of OK, please explain how modern silicon lithography using extreme ultraviolet wavelengths does not depend on numerous scientific consensuses in fundamental physics. Actually don't bother because you clearly don't even understand the basics o the scientific method let alone have even the slightest clue about the specifics of climate change. But no, you know better. Good luck with your new 3nm chip produced by ignoring all scientific consensus. You know better! In the end, your position is anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-rationality, and potentially very destructive if enough people are as stupid.

I read the above drivel several times and it still makes no sense.

esotericar said: Demhcs said: That whole 2030/2035 thing is just virtue signalling twaddle and is never actually going to happen just like the whole net zero b ks which is already politically very unpopular. You really need to tune out these ecomentalist nutters. Or tune into reality? You may not have noticed, but the entire auto industry is shifting to battery electric. Every major car maker is rapidly phasing out ICE and shifting their products to battery electric. Whether it's a sensible idea is another matter. But it's happening. Wake up! I don't think every manufacturer is. There are manufacturers who will continue to manufacture ICEs beyond 2030 regardless of any hypothetical grace period. I'm sure BMW confirmed they would and IIRC Renault has expressed reluctance. Ford are not really showing any sign of committing to EVs given their Chinese presence. Neither are the likes of Toyota. Countries such as those that are presently less developed may also be unable or simply unwilling to meet a switch to EV only. You've got entire continents and subcontinents to grapple with - e.g. Africa, Asia (including the Middle East), Russia, Eastern and Southern Europe, Central and South America. They'll still be reliant on major German, Japanese, Korean and Chinese manufacturers, aside from anything local, and none of those are committing to a ban on manufacturing ICEs. In fact it's possible China could fill and dominate any ICE void if it doesn't (as I expect it will) suddenly have a large and successful global EV presence. You've got Ford in China, Peugeot and French manufacturers in countries like Iran and China, VW in Brazil, Toyota in Pakistan, JLR in India and various in Turkey. They will all be manufacturing ICEs. The possible way around things following a complete ban in the UK is to therefore source, purchase and import from abroad as they'll still be around but unable IMO to be classified as a new sale in the UK. But good luck if petrol station pump numbers begin to dwindle!

GRD_72 said: I read the above drivel several times and it still makes no sense. Correct but its someone who believes in climate change so not surprising but is very entertaining

I see esotericar has a very familiar style of writing to another poster F6C Moo... Presumably is just a coincidence...

esotericar said: Charlie_1 said: fternoon you are back , didnt you say yourself that you dont have the expertise either so how is your view more valid than mine I never said my view on climate change is valid. You just made that up. I very clearly said I don't take a view and I'm not in a position to disagree with the consensus from an informed perspective. Neither are you. What I am saying is that your dissent with the consensus scientific view as a non expert is based on ignorance, delusions of intellectual grandeur and stupidity. You know absolutely nothing of substance that puts you in a position to disagree with the consensus. It is chronic bias that leads you to do so. You want something else to be true, so you look for things to confirm that bias and ignore a consensus you are not in a position to judge. And it's very, very silly. Charlie_1 said: Modern technology based on consensus you are completely and utterly clueless and that is something I do have some knowledge of OK, please explain how modern silicon lithography using extreme ultraviolet wavelengths does not depend on numerous scientific consensuses in fundamental physics. Actually don't bother because you clearly don't even understand the basics o the scientific method let alone have even the slightest clue about the specifics of climate change. But no, you know better. Good luck with your new 3nm chip produced by ignoring all scientific consensus. You know better! In the end, your position is anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-rationality, and potentially very destructive if enough people are as stupid. so to be clear you are saying unless you have complete expert knowledge on a given set of facts any subject you shouldn't make a decision on them , well thats not pompous at all you keep saying im not a climate expert , correct im saying these people/scientists say this & I agree which is actually what you are doing just havent thought it through I believe people can make choices based on facts and personally i may be better than most as its part of my professional role, You said technology not science by the way I never said I was a scientist , you repeatedly mention consensus so you think because 1000 say 1 thing and 100 say the opposite the 1000 are right because there are a 1000 of them , not a given after all wasn't the consensus that the world was flat but one man disagreed oh dear consensus got it wrong , anti knowledge actually I wish there was a bit more I wouldnt have to put up with so many idiots , no i didnt go looking to confirm my beliefs , it appeared to be a thing that people seemed to have strident views on so like I say I did some reading and yes there are opposing views , and I know which which one I believe and the very fact the 1000 are being questioned means they could be wrong , you say stupid but from my perspective it seems I live in a world where people dont like using their brains & being led like sheep which is much worse. ps am I talking to Sheldon from the big bang?

^^^ Vicky Pollard impression ?

nickfrog said: ^^^ Vicky Pollard impression ? Nickfrog was that directed at me , well I dont speak ecomentalist so lost on me sweetheart Edited by Charlie_1 on Tuesday 24th May 17:43 Edited by Charlie_1 on Tuesday 24th May 17:54

Charlie_1 said: Correct but its someone who believes in climate change so not surprising but is very entertaining I also believe in climate change. It's always been changing, dinosaurs, ice age, etc, etc, and will continue to change. But what I don't believe is the current glib political crap about banning ICE cars as it won't make one jot of difference to the planet. It'll help inner city air quality, but that's another argument really.

GRD_72 said: Charlie_1 said: Correct but its someone who believes in climate change so not surprising but is very entertaining I also believe in climate change. It's always been changing, dinosaurs, ice age, etc, etc, and will continue to change. But what I don't believe is the current glib political crap about banning ICE cars as it won't make one jot of difference to the planet. It'll help inner city air quality, but that's another argument really. Apologies I wasnt having a dig at you, in fact I agree 101 % with you its the 'man made' bit, and yes the air thing is different and something may need to done about that

No worries. It was the thread title that caught my eye. I think the current high fuel price / inflation combo will cause a crash in the premium car segment. Gas guzzling SUVs are a luxury product, people paying overs for a 6 month old Macan can’t have much longer to run. Likewise for non special 911’s once supply perks up and demand slows a tad, they’re on a slippery slope.

Charlie_1 said: esotericar said: Charlie_1 said: fternoon you are back , didnt you say yourself that you dont have the expertise either so how is your view more valid than mine I never said my view on climate change is valid. You just made that up. I very clearly said I don't take a view and I'm not in a position to disagree with the consensus from an informed perspective. Neither are you. What I am saying is that your dissent with the consensus scientific view as a non expert is based on ignorance, delusions of intellectual grandeur and stupidity. You know absolutely nothing of substance that puts you in a position to disagree with the consensus. It is chronic bias that leads you to do so. You want something else to be true, so you look for things to confirm that bias and ignore a consensus you are not in a position to judge. And it's very, very silly. Charlie_1 said: Modern technology based on consensus you are completely and utterly clueless and that is something I do have some knowledge of OK, please explain how modern silicon lithography using extreme ultraviolet wavelengths does not depend on numerous scientific consensuses in fundamental physics. Actually don't bother because you clearly don't even understand the basics o the scientific method let alone have even the slightest clue about the specifics of climate change. But no, you know better. Good luck with your new 3nm chip produced by ignoring all scientific consensus. You know better! In the end, your position is anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-rationality, and potentially very destructive if enough people are as stupid. so to be clear you are saying unless you have complete expert knowledge on a given set of facts any subject you shouldn't make a decision on them , well thats not pompous at all you keep saying im not a climate expert , correct im saying these people/scientists say this & I agree which is actually what you are doing just havent thought it through I believe people can make choices based on facts and personally i may be better than most as its part of my professional role, You said technology not science by the way I never said I was a scientist , you repeatedly mention consensus so you think because 1000 say 1 thing and 100 say the opposite the 1000 are right because there are a 1000 of them , not a given after all wasn't the consensus that the world was flat but one man disagreed oh dear consensus got it wrong , anti knowledge actually I wish there was a bit more I wouldnt have to put up with so many idiots , no i didnt go looking to confirm my beliefs , it appeared to be a thing that people seemed to have strident views on so like I say I did some reading and yes there are opposing views , and I know which which one I believe and the very fact the 1000 are being questioned means they could be wrong , you say stupid but from my perspective it seems I live in a world where people dont like using their brains & being led like sheep which is much worse. ps am I talking to Sheldon from the big bang? Charlie 1 You make be speaking sense, but some punctuation would make it so much easier to decide.....

ds666 said: Charlie 1 You make be speaking sense, but some punctuation would make it so much easier to decide..... Exactly , FFS take breath...

GRD_72 said: No worries. It was the thread title that caught my eye. I think the current high fuel price / inflation combo will cause a crash in the premium car segment. Gas guzzling SUVs are a luxury product, people paying overs for a 6 month old Macan can’t have much longer to run. Likewise for non special 911’s once supply perks up and demand slows a tad, they’re on a slippery slope. I don't see a crash coming. I'm not saying it's impossible but it's a longer way off than a softening. I have been predicting a house market drop for the last 5 years or more and I am still wrong. So yes it's easy to predict a crash in premium cars but will it happen? I think the main market up until the post covid chaos was for car leasing deals. These will obviously get less attractive as interest rates rise if the car manufacturers allow the rate rise to carry over to the public. I'm not sure if the leasing craze is still in full swing as generally this was only possible due to an excess of supply. If this excess has disappeared then so too will the leasing deals. But lets say the leasing deals carry on as before. The car manufacturers could still offer potentially low rates on these because they are still making money. If a 50k car costs them 10k to produce - its probably more like 5k - and they can lease it to someone for 500 per month plus 1500 down for 3 years then they get their 10k back after 17 months and another 10k profit after that. They can still sell the car for let's say 20k at the end of thus term too. So they don't really need to finance much if anything. Worse case they need to finance 10k, the manufacturing cost, which isn't much considering its a 50k car.

GRD_72 said: I read the above drivel several times and it still makes no sense.

otolith said: The thing that climate deniers don’t seem to get is that it doesn’t matter whether they’re wrong or not - nobody of any power or influence thinks they’re any more credible than flat-Earthers. May as well howl at the moon, they’re not going to change policy.

braddo said: otolith said: The thing that climate deniers don’t seem to get is that it doesn’t matter whether they’re wrong or not - nobody of any power or influence thinks they’re any more credible than flat-Earthers. May as well howl at the moon, they’re not going to change policy. Let’s see….

ds666 said: Charlie_1 said: esotericar said: Charlie_1 said: fternoon you are back , didnt you say yourself that you dont have the expertise either so how is your view more valid than mine I never said my view on climate change is valid. You just made that up. I very clearly said I don't take a view and I'm not in a position to disagree with the consensus from an informed perspective. Neither are you. What I am saying is that your dissent with the consensus scientific view as a non expert is based on ignorance, delusions of intellectual grandeur and stupidity. You know absolutely nothing of substance that puts you in a position to disagree with the consensus. It is chronic bias that leads you to do so. You want something else to be true, so you look for things to confirm that bias and ignore a consensus you are not in a position to judge. And it's very, very silly. Charlie_1 said: Modern technology based on consensus you are completely and utterly clueless and that is something I do have some knowledge of OK, please explain how modern silicon lithography using extreme ultraviolet wavelengths does not depend on numerous scientific consensuses in fundamental physics. Actually don't bother because you clearly don't even understand the basics o the scientific method let alone have even the slightest clue about the specifics of climate change. But no, you know better. Good luck with your new 3nm chip produced by ignoring all scientific consensus. You know better! In the end, your position is anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-rationality, and potentially very destructive if enough people are as stupid. so to be clear you are saying unless you have complete expert knowledge on a given set of facts any subject you shouldn't make a decision on them , well thats not pompous at all you keep saying im not a climate expert , correct im saying these people/scientists say this & I agree which is actually what you are doing just havent thought it through I believe people can make choices based on facts and personally i may be better than most as its part of my professional role, You said technology not science by the way I never said I was a scientist , you repeatedly mention consensus so you think because 1000 say 1 thing and 100 say the opposite the 1000 are right because there are a 1000 of them , not a given after all wasn't the consensus that the world was flat but one man disagreed oh dear consensus got it wrong , anti knowledge actually I wish there was a bit more I wouldnt have to put up with so many idiots , no i didnt go looking to confirm my beliefs , it appeared to be a thing that people seemed to have strident views on so like I say I did some reading and yes there are opposing views , and I know which which one I believe and the very fact the 1000 are being questioned means they could be wrong , you say stupid but from my perspective it seems I live in a world where people dont like using their brains & being led like sheep which is much worse. ps am I talking to Sheldon from the big bang? Charlie 1 You make be speaking sense, but some punctuation would make it so much easier to decide..... Thank you , i apologize , what it does prove is I'm a proper man cant multitask was on the phone at same time

Gerradi said: ds666 said: Charlie 1 You make be speaking sense, but some punctuation would make it so much easier to decide..... Exactly , FFS take breath... Sorry, reading it yes its bit frantic but like I say i was trying to do 2 things at once & I clearly cant and being honest that pompus D!ckhead Sheldon did get under my skin a bit

BAMoFo said: The Rover K series engine is a masterpiece in certain applications such as my Lotus 340R. I wouldn't put any other engine in it whatsoever!! Keep an open mind; after all, a guy called Elon modded his Lotus with an electric powertrain and look where it got him... (Just kidding, lovely car and I'm glad you enjoy it!) To clarify my statement: Cars with K series engines that go pop, of which there are many (which haven't had head gaskets sorted properly, that is). I'm delighted you love your Lotus and wouldn't dream of using it as an example but there are plenty of other K series cars for which it'd be an improvement... It might give a fresh lease of life to a tired old MGF one day...

blearyeyedboy said: BAMoFo said: The Rover K series engine is a masterpiece in certain applications such as my Lotus 340R. I wouldn't put any other engine in it whatsoever!! Keep an open mind; after all, a guy called Elon modded his Lotus with an electric powertrain and look where it got him... (Just kidding, lovely car and I'm glad you enjoy it!) To clarify my statement: Cars with K series engines that go pop, of which there are many (which haven't had head gaskets sorted properly, that is). I'm delighted you love your Lotus and wouldn't dream of using it as an example but there are plenty of other K series cars for which it'd be an improvement... It might give a fresh lease of life to a tired old MGF one day... Talking K series engines. I’ve had 13 Caterhams now with all types of engines. Can honestly say amongst the very best of the bunch were the two Superlight R cars with 190BHP K series. Great wee engine/cars.

finmac said: Talking K series engines. I’ve had 13 Caterhams now with all types of engines. Can honestly say amongst the very best of the bunch were the two Superlight R cars with 190BHP K series. Great wee engine/cars. Likewise I had 2 K series super sports over 15 years and 30,000 miles. Not a hint of trouble, great little engines.

otolith said: The thing that climate deniers don’t seem to get is that it doesn’t matter whether they’re wrong or not - nobody of any power or influence thinks they’re any more credible than flat-Earthers. May as well howl at the moon, they’re not going to change policy. Correct. No matter how loudly their pips squeak.

Discombobulate said: otolith said: The thing that climate deniers don’t seem to get is that it doesn’t matter whether they’re wrong or not - nobody of any power or influence thinks they’re any more credible than flat-Earthers. May as well howl at the moon, they’re not going to change policy. Correct. No matter how loudly their pips squeak. Incorrect. Not everyone "in power" or potentially in power in 2024 is a slave to wokeist alarmist virtue signalling.

Demhcs said: Incorrect. Not everyone "in power" or potentially in power in 2024 is a slave to wokeist alarmist virtue signalling. A sincere belief (again, correct or otherwise) in the mainstream scientific consensus that unless we change our behaviour our actions are going to cause massive practical problems for humanity is not "woke" or "virtue signalling". Are you so wrapped up in the culture wars that you think everything comes down to that? If so, you are being played by people who don't have your best interests at heart.

otolith said: Demhcs said: Incorrect. Not everyone "in power" or potentially in power in 2024 is a slave to wokeist alarmist virtue signalling. A sincere belief (again, correct or otherwise) in the mainstream scientific consensus that unless we change our behaviour our actions are going to cause massive practical problems for humanity is not "woke" or "virtue signalling". Are you so wrapped up in the culture wars that you think everything comes down to that? If so, you are being played by people who don't have your best interests at heart. Is not about me. But believing nobody of power or influence also holds that view is naive at best....

otolith said: Demhcs said: Incorrect. Not everyone "in power" or potentially in power in 2024 is a slave to wokeist alarmist virtue signalling. A sincere belief (again, correct or otherwise) in the mainstream scientific consensus that unless we change our behaviour our actions are going to cause massive practical problems for humanity is not "woke" or "virtue signalling". Are you so wrapped up in the culture wars that you think everything comes down to that? If so, you are being played by people who don't have your best interests at heart. mainstream scientific consensus do you Eco bods chant that as a mantra as you go to sleep , that phrase does not make it true in fact there are quite a few scientists that disagree, but no people read the 'we are all going to die headline' and stop thinking but if you have been following thread you know my opinion this im not going through it again , agreed its not virtue signaling but the high ground smugness that you eco chaps emanate has no foundation , virtue signaling is saying that by driving an EV you are saving the planet , you really arent , try a bit of reading Another point you eco chaps dont talk about much is the societal changes that will occur if/when the brave new world arrives presumably because you dont want people to stop focusing on the we are all going to die headline

Charlie_1 said: ainstream scientific consensus do you Eco bods chant that as a mantra as you go to sleep , that phrase does not make it true in fact there are quite a few scientists that disagree, but no people read the 'we are all going to die headline' and stop thinking but if you have been following thread you know my opinion this im not going through it again , agreed its not virtue signaling but the high ground smugness that you eco chaps emanate has no foundation , virtue signaling is saying that by driving an EV you are saving the planet , you really arent , try a bit of reading Another point you eco chaps dont talk about much is the societal changes that will occur if/when the brave new world arrives presumably because you dont want people to stop focusing on the we are all going to die headline Would you consider stopping the "eco chaps" thing please? Pigeon holing people into a convenient catch-all doesn't really give you much credibility. It is entirely possible to have a rational view without necessarily being an eco warrior. Plenty of degrees between fanatism and rationality. In fact you seem to apply your own standards to those who may disagree with you. It is entirely possible to come to a reasonned position on the balance of the evidence without being blindly inspired by the scientific community. It doesn't have to be virtue signaling either. I fear that you are judging others by your own standards and by the limitations of your own thought process with a few ad hominems and strawman sprinkled on top, but sadly with no punctuation.

Charlie_1 said: otolith said: Demhcs said: Incorrect. Not everyone "in power" or potentially in power in 2024 is a slave to wokeist alarmist virtue signalling. A sincere belief (again, correct or otherwise) in the mainstream scientific consensus that unless we change our behaviour our actions are going to cause massive practical problems for humanity is not "woke" or "virtue signalling". Are you so wrapped up in the culture wars that you think everything comes down to that? If so, you are being played by people who don't have your best interests at heart. mainstream scientific consensus do you Eco bods chant that as a mantra as you go to sleep , that phrase does not make it true in fact there are quite a few scientists that disagree, but no people read the 'we are all going to die headline' and stop thinking but if you have been following thread you know my opinion this im not going through it again , agreed its not virtue signaling but the high ground smugness that you eco chaps emanate has no foundation , virtue signaling is saying that by driving an EV you are saving the planet , you really arent , try a bit of reading Another point you eco chaps dont talk about much is the societal changes that will occur if/when the brave new world arrives presumably because you dont want people to stop focusing on the we are all going to die headline What do you think of flat earthers, creationists, anti-vaxxers, etc? Because that's exactly the bucket that the vast majority of educated people put you into.

nickfrog said: Would you consider stopping the "eco chaps" thing please? Pigeon holing people into a convenient catch-all doesn't really give you much credibility. It is entirely possible to have a rational view without necessarily being an eco warrior. Plenty of degrees between fanatism and rationality. In fact you seem to apply your own standards to those who may disagree with you. It is entirely possible to come to a reasonned position on the balance of the evidence without being blindly inspired by the scientific community. It doesn't have to be virtue signaling either. I fear that you are judging others by your own standards and by the limitations of your own thought process with a few ad hominems and strawman sprinkled on top, but sadly with no punctuation. Im happy to apologize for the punctuation at that level im a clown , the the name thing , It seems that nowadays the minute i air my point of view which is climate change = yes , man made = no , the usual response is usually fairly horrid and I have had enough and im going start punching back. 'It is entirely possible to come to a reasonned position' I totally agree in fact thats what I have done but as I say apparently Im not allowed to think/say that. Hopefully you can understand why im frustrated , I dont expect everyone to agree , but really everyone has a choice and shouldnt be prevented from making it I am going to have a dig though , you say limitations of your own thought process, Im yet to read anything this in this post that indicates anyones thought process is better than mine , mostly the polar opposite Edited by Charlie_1 on Wednesday 25th May 19:06

nickfrog said: Plenty of degrees between fanatism and rationality. But from you we have only heard from the former.

otolith said: Charlie_1 said: otolith said: Demhcs said: Incorrect. Not everyone "in power" or potentially in power in 2024 is a slave to wokeist alarmist virtue signalling. A sincere belief (again, correct or otherwise) in the mainstream scientific consensus that unless we change our behaviour our actions are going to cause massive practical problems for humanity is not "woke" or "virtue signalling". Are you so wrapped up in the culture wars that you think everything comes down to that? If so, you are being played by people who don't have your best interests at heart. mainstream scientific consensus do you Eco bods chant that as a mantra as you go to sleep , that phrase does not make it true in fact there are quite a few scientists that disagree, but no people read the 'we are all going to die headline' and stop thinking but if you have been following thread you know my opinion this im not going through it again , agreed its not virtue signaling but the high ground smugness that you eco chaps emanate has no foundation , virtue signaling is saying that by driving an EV you are saving the planet , you really arent , try a bit of reading Another point you eco chaps dont talk about much is the societal changes that will occur if/when the brave new world arrives presumably because you dont want people to stop focusing on the we are all going to die headline What do you think of flat earthers, creationists, anti-vaxxers, etc? Because that's exactly the bucket that the vast majority of educated people put you into. Really well if you are an example of an educated person that clearly doesnt mean much, you may be educated but you arent very intelligent are you though Edited by Charlie_1 on Wednesday 25th May 19:48 Edited by Charlie_1 on Wednesday 25th May 19:50

^ I'm glad your cars are great but c'mon guys, are you seriously going to claim that large numbers of K Series engines didn't go pop? When properly sorted, I agree they're a delight. But like the girl with a little curl... When they were good they were very very good but when they were bad they were horrid. The same with rotary engines, which is why I used those as an example too. All I'm trying to say is that future advances in tech might mean that EV powertrains give a few cars without functioning engines a new lease of life one day. As an example, I'm aware of an RX8 just sat around for the best part of a decade. Edited by blearyeyedboy on Thursday 26th May 00:22