This EV has lost £3836 per mile, its Been For Sale 2 Years, and has been reduced by £34,530

[@69waveydavey]

Mate of mine has had his EV for over 40 years, he absolutely loves it, he's out in it every day, rain or shine, he charges it in his garage. Our milkman. lovely fella.

[@briangillespie9905]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@ComeJesusChrist]

He and the other fellas in the warehouse driving the forklifts can keep theirs. The rest should have never been made.

[@aeroearth]

But your mate's EV runs on LEAD ACID batteries. Well suited to the stop start operation of milk bottle delivery.

[@69waveydavey]

@@aeroearth I wouldn't know that only being a car mechanic for 40 years.

[@GT380man]

Ernie?

[@Isclachau]

Get ready for the EV fanatics to quote some nonsense about Norway being EV utopia without realising it’s a terrible example.

[@15bit62]

Why is Norway a terrible example?

[@GT380man]

⁠@@15bit62Most people also own an ICE car there. EVs simply don’t function well at sub zero temperatures. Electrical energy has to be expended merely to warm up the half to one ton battery before it’ll operate. For every 10C fall in ambient temperature, the rate of the chemical reactions, which have to occur in order that electrical power will drive the motor, halves. Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist, worked this out around the turn of the 19th century. It’s an immutable phenomenon, it might be called a “law”. See the Arrhenius Equation on Wikipedia. If your EV is garaged, it’ll be less cold but energy is needed from somewhere to raise or maintain temperature. The battery also holds less energy (total charge in kW.h) when apparently “fully charged”. As a consequence, EVs are a big handicap in severe winter conditions. You’ll also need internal heating to prevent the occupants from freezing to death but if you turn on the heating plus heating the seats & steering wheel, you’re not going very far. Do you remember the pile up of discharged EVs in winter 2023/4 in Chicago? That’s an example of the Arrhenius Equation in the real world. Anyway, this is my limited understanding of the effect of it in very cold temperatures. They’re inherently unsuitable for a sizeable chunk of the northern hemisphere, which has a winter worth writing home about. What use is a vehicle you simply cannot depend upon for a few months of every year? You need a dependable car for those situations and always will, ZEV mandates or not.

[@ogasi1798]

holy shi7 i just saw that fiat 500 for 30k.... OMG and they wonder why they are not selling

[@kennethausten]

Yes I saw similar figures. It's a non starter . Range will change my life as will be impossible to do my normal use. What a world we live in now.

[@GT380man]

@@kennethausten”You’re approaching the boundary of your 15 minute city. Check your social credit score before attempting to proceed. If you’ve already used up your allowances, turn around to avoid penalties from the Geofencing mobility denial system built into the car”. Way too few people paid attention to what was obviously going to happen. So the crooks destroying our country and those of our European neighbours will get away with it all. Even now, if you try and explain to people what is happening, they simply refuse to believe it, asking “Why would they do that?” I know why. UN2030 Sustainable Development Goals imply the ending of privately owned powered transport (& so much more). People generally don’t believe that, either. They’ll say “Country X simply won’t go along with that. They won’t allow one of their largest sectors to be destroyed in such a way. Also, citizens would never accept not being able to buy a car….” Etc.

[@AndrewKeyz]

EV mandates, destroying UK car manufacturing and even a begging bowl trip to China. Madness.

[@johnthemagnificent7022]

Thanks Barrie..... Still can't believe how much these Milkfloats have lost and they aren't even sold

[@bastogne315]

He brilliant. Got me on the EV ladder for next to nothin. Brilliant Barrie..earth is flat btw

[@marineboy1964]

Who's going to buy a 3 or 4 year old EV with a few miles on the clock , it's a ticking time bomb on how long the battery has left

[@cutedgehouse]

Or just a ticking time bomb…

[@GrahamNewman-mq7gr]

These batteries will decay ,but if they were well up on charge when they were put into " Hiding" Li . Batteries will only have decayed a few % . Look how the Shelf Life of Li AA/ AAA Batteries has increased 5/ 10 years. If they were very low on charge , answers on a post card.

[@Cyberpsych0_]

Low IQ dinosaurs here, thinking EV batteries die after 3-4 years, jfl.

[@ericevans6382]

😂😂

[@justaman5418]

Comparable to buying a second hand mac book one day its gonna cost to fix it 😂

[@RobertoSanchez-rz4qv]

Keep up the good work Barrie!

[@paulnewman9275]

Porsche Taycan Global Sales Plummeted in 2024 Demand for the EV halved last year, but the fun gas cars flourished. And they just had to recall about 24,000 Taycans with battery issues ,you know what that means folks 🔥

[@ComeJesusChrist]

They are selling like hotcakes! Sorry, I meant to say ‘burning like hot cakes’!

[@paulnewman9275]

@ComeJesusChrist About sums it up ,ticking time bo......🔥

[@ghunt9146]

Those adverts speak volumes, & there's no denying the facts. Our friend has been told that she can now take delivery of her new petrol Kia. January's sales figures will be very interesting, me thinks.

[@ogasi1798]

keep going Barry

[@matthewgodwin3050]

Does the Fiat 500e Khan Edition increase knife crime and make a whole pile of money disappear?

[@binits777]

Keep up the analysis and sharing your wisdom Barrie. It’s very much needed to combat all the false information the EVangalists are pouting.

[@GrahamNewman-mq7gr]

This has got to come to a head . The EV brigade have got to face reality " EVs Are as desirable as a dose of syphalus ". I repeat whoes name is in the V5 . Who wrote the cheque when it was registered. No dealership can have £80,000 eating money up to 2 years . Probably on some Finance / Stocking plan !!. and NO chance of moving these "4" WHEEL ELECTRIC LEMONS.

[@andyt1048]

Went on our first holiday abroad for years with what we’ve saved on petrol. Just saying not bad for a lemon.

[@BarrieCrampton]

@andyt1048 lemon? If you say so 🤣 have you checked how much it’s depreciated by, I think you will find you’ve lost more than you would have done if you’d bought a petrol, but hey don’t let that stop you putting up a smug post😂

[@stevemk4st649]

@@BarrieCrampton HAHA....exactly Barry. Think that post was to make themselves feel good about their EV, the rest of us really don't care.

[@GT380man]

@@andyt1048PROPAGANDA, Andy, Don’t kid yourself that anybody here believes you.

[@iAPX432]

Apparently milkfloat are not that good after all. Who could have guessed?!?

[@bernardrobinson5942]

Please do not insult real milk floats, they work !

[@bordersw1239]

Looking at AT today, amazes me the number of dealers that haven’t bothered to charge them - showing ‘power limited’ warning signs or range 10 miles because the battery is at 3% charge etc. Not a good look and also bad for the battery.

[@JamesWilliamson-w8y]

How much will a dealer pay me to take an EV off his hands.?

[@norwoodboy6048]

More like how much you pay them!

[@JamesWilliamson-w8y]

@@norwoodboy6048 No way. I charge for taking away rubbish. Just like my local council.

[@peterbrownless]

​@@JamesWilliamson-w8y Dangerous chemical waste, so higher collection fees😂

[@j._.taylor]

Still not worth it 😂

[@jonathonmanxrusby7762]

Good work Barrie and totally agree, truly frightening what these legislative clowns legislation has done - as an aside, the AT Price Tracker extension adds great further insight to this misery.....

[@MichaelDiCarlo-k6e]

Barrie totally agree with you about AutoTrader’s new viewing format, certainly not as easy as the previous format….

[@mv4ago]

So the Jaguar IPace has had 26 views in 2 years? Only 1 person per month has looked at the advert? That says everything about the EV market, manufacturers need to start standing up to governments and tell them to f off or else they will go to the wall.

[@shreeshsaurya4203]

@@mv4ago I pace is the worst EV per most reviews. No wonder it is not selling apart from Jaguar discontinued it amongst other models.

[@brandywell44]

I wonder if the Taxpayer will soon be forced into providing a free EV to boat people

[@clivefrear1784]

How times change; as a Sales Manager, I was not allowed any used car to be in stock beyond sixty days. It was a few years back, but a good policy then and - seemingly - considered unnecessary now! The logic being if a car hadn’t sold within two months, turn it back into cash and buy something more saleable. A good discipline!

[@g0fvt]

I think car buyers are wary of various legislative changes so feel disinclined to put a lot of money into any vehicle. For many the economics of charging an EV away from home don't make sense. I simply cannot understand how so many private sales seem to be of cars with only nominal mileage.

[@HappyBagger]

Almost a quarter of EVs for sale on Auto Trader have done under 500 miles. Backs up Barrie's two key points - Dealers pre-registering, and buyer's remorse. And omg I saw some of them "Twizy" things, they look like drones...

[@Un-Apologetic]

The problem is that if the general public psychologically think EVs are a premium price over ICE and they see them at these prices they'll naturally think ICE are cheaper than ever. I think EVs are great, but they're only for a very small portion of the UK. I run a Citroën C5 Aircross PHEV and love it, but for any distance, I use my VW 2.0tdi.

[@stephenhookings1985]

If some of these 2nd hand EVs have done such low mileage, what implications are there to the battery? 500 miles is from to 5 charges right? Over 2 years. No impact on life of the battery? Genuine question - my LiON drill battery wouldn't like that. The old NiCADs certainly didnt.

[@youbencowell]

Cars have far more sophisticated battery management systems.

[@15bit62]

It depends how they've been stored. If they were left at 100% sitting in the sunshine then they might suffer some capacity loss. If they were completely discharged and left standing then they might even be bricked. But if they were left at 50-60% there is probably no measurable impact.

[@christophercharles3169]

I guess flying off the shelves doesn't mean what it used to.

[@BarrieCrampton]

Nope, very true

[@ComeJesusChrist]

I bought some electric cars, but the batteries kept going down. Fortunately, our young son grew out of these toys.

[@taptaptapuk]

Thanks if those cars have been standing outside for 2 years that cannot be that great

[@BarrieCrampton]

My thoughts exactly

[@rayro999]

Just saw a Headline today 'European EV market collapse'. That just echo's Barrie's video two days ago showing what happened to the German EV market.

[@BarrieCrampton]

Yep

[@dougle03]

If you hit CTRL and click on a car it will open in a new tab so you keep your existing tab where it was...

[@BarrieCrampton]

Good idea

[@kennethausten]

My pension collapsed in 2008. Never recovered.

[@GT380man]

That, too, was an engineered event. It was in 2021 that a city analyst told me that 2008 was a dry run, without which lockdowns could not have been possible. What was the key difference? Firstly, it familiarised everyone to the concept of QE. Without QE, governments would not have been able to shutter half the productive economy. The country would have been running a budget deficit so large that the currency markets would have collapsed, ending imports. Also, there would have been no “furlough” & citizens would have been forced back into work very rapidly. 2008 also permitted the testing of what happens to the assets of solvent individuals who used certain financial institutions as intermediaries (they were legally stolen and the courts declared that act “legal”). The city type I spoke with said he’d been very suspicious back then but was strongly discouraged from speculating about what was really going on. He said he only realised why 2008 had been run once “lockdown” was imposed. I believe him.

[@bastogne315]

I wanna thank this guy for helping drive down the cost of EVs. Just bought mine for 10k less than the original asking..its brilliant and puts my ice car to shame andcsaves me 300 a month on fuel. 😂😂😂❤❤❤

[@paulnewman9275]

New BEV Mini £44k and weighs 1.6 tonnes ... ridiculous, worth about £8-10k after 3 years

[@ComeJesusChrist]

Plus the lease costs, interest and so on! But hey, they can charge at home for 7p per kWh for five hours, only with their daily rate being higher than ours!

[@paulnewman9275]

@ComeJesusChrist Yup they will recoup about 5% of their losses assuming they never public charge ..for crazy folk only.

[@mikewhitehead50]

Thats a lie, they're £30k. Judging by old model used value, they'll be worth £13-14k after 3 years, if not more.

[@paulnewman9275]

@mikewhitehead50 Rubbish Mini Cooper £40k plus any options ....the only model most people would buy ....made currently in ,yes ,China. £50k Ioniq 5 are now worth £10k after 3 years and a way better car than the stupid and ugly new BEV Mini. Even if you were right ,and you are not ,that's colossal deprecation on a small car ( with very limited real world range) ....only for the brave or stu....

[@mikewhitehead50]

@@paulnewman9275 You're making things up. Mini Cooper Electric starts at £30k. The oldest 2021 Ioniq 5 are for sale at around £20k and they were about £40k new.

[@AaaaandAction]

There was a Channel 5 ICE vs EV comparison program. Have it recorded but I almost know already how the result will go …….. what mainstream tv program maker is going to come down against the EV? I’ll watch it just for giggles though.

[@xl447]

Yes, heavily biased to persuade the viewer into thinking ev's are great. Even the drag race was rigged with the ice car having to accelerate through it's wet track versus the eves dry,

[@markdegaute2125]

Seemed like a propaganda programme. I switched channel as I found it annoying.

[@AaaaandAction]

Even the clock either side of the breaks settled on the EV side. Subliminal messaging? Unsurprisingly the young guy driving the two mercs (that nobody who isn’t a drug dealer can afford) chose the ICE for the pure fun of driving. Imagine you chose the EV and found it was 70+ mph SLOWER - Note, EV are fast off the mark but can’t develop high speed power, and at top speed will run out of battery within the distance you can see. The trip to Colwyn was biased with only one charge stop and they didn’t include the cost of the meal you buy while you’re waiting for a limp forward amount of charge. How about doing a 500 mile round trip starting with a quarter charge! That would be one 5 minute stop for the petrol vehicle and probably 4 charge stops making her about 3 hours behind Dad and a good few calories heavier. Acceleration was with ICE car driving through wet road and finally how about testing cargo luggage with two cars of the same model. Despite all the bias the ICE still (begrudgingly) won.

[@sunnybnk]

I'm with you on the changes in the Autotrader presentation.

[@primafacie6442]

Barry, are you sure the ❤️ logo isn’t an automatic sympathy nomination for a ‘heart of gold award’ on any car that hasn’t sold in 3 years of its first Autotrader listing? It should be awarded to the new naive owner, who thinks they’re so lucky to get a bargain low mileage EV……Cilla Black singing……surprise surprise, another low mileage EV hits you between the eyes.😂

[@BarrieCrampton]

True

[@petew8388]

I may consider an EV if the dealer makes it worth my while....How much will HE pay me ?...LOL.

[@mikeandhev]

I took my Smart 451 diesel for a service at Smart Sheffiekd and on the way out the service lady showed me a new Smart EV and I told her that Smart Sheffield would have to pay me to take it off their hands, true story.

[@neilsessions9744]

I won't ever change from petrol but in fairness there are loads of 22 plate ice cars on auto trader with no miles on them

[@thomasreed49]

I think all cars have become too expensive. If you’ve got money in an ISA at 4% it’s probably worth keeping the car you’ve got the last so long today it’s not only cost you the money for the car is costing of the money you lose from the interest that’s why I’m not changing anyway.

[@zjzozn]

I think you will change to EV’s 😂

[@neilsessions9744]

@zjzozn nah sticking to my cooper s and 69 Camaro

[@robdavies7]

A lot of these battery cars look like they have already had a frontal collision....with 1 mile on the clock...must be my eyes🤓. 😂

[@j._.taylor]

Far more ICE cars on the roads than EVs. Pure statistics.

[@ComeJesusChrist]

I’ve owned almost forty cars in the last 21 years. One of them, a then 9 year old E-Class estate cost me slightly more than £3800 a couple of years ago. The rest were all cheaper when I bought them,including a classic 107 SL280. I only faced depreciation with two or three cars, the rest returned their purchase price. Thinking that some dealers or people lost as much on every miles their car covered that I spent on my most expensive car, is frightening.

[@SuperCatbert]

a big problem is interest rates. I look at a 20 grand car now and think, what can 20k at 5% in a savings account get me.... let alone what a finance interest rate on a car loan is. what 13% or more?

[@GrahamNewman-mq7gr]

You are correct £20,000 at 5% on a cash ISA ( Tax Fee" ) = £1,000. These people who have finance on these EVs . If it is on the original price you have The interest on the loan + the depreciation . How can any person with a brain hav fallen for this. They must be " A BALE SHORT OF A LOAD".

[@actualfacts1055]

A ten year old EV is completely worthless.

[@bastogne315]

So is an equiv ice 😂

[@paulnewman9275]

Falling electric vehicle (EV) sales in Germany dealt a “devastating” blow to the European market last year, as Chinese carmakers powered ahead of rivals in the West. The number of EVs sold across Europe fell by 3pc to 3m during 2024, according to data from analysis firm Rho Motion.

[@whitedragonracing]

What fool would buy a second hand rechargeable battery? I have loads of aa and aaa rechargeables if anyone wishes to buy them? 😂

[@royshaft]

But Racheal in accounts said that them E.V’s are the future .

[@freeforester1717]

She also described herself as an Economist - economical with the truth, more like! When considering matters surrounding the current political narratives of the day, we should bear in mind the wise words of past figures of some merit; the American man of letters Henry Brooks Adams observed that 'Practical politics consists in ignoring facts'; Churchill famously noted that 'United wishes and goodwill cannot overcome brute facts; panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it; but there it is'. Burns was a little more frank: 'Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed'. I’d like to see the scientific proof or evidence that man-made carbon dioxide emissions (globally accounting for 18 of the 420 odd parts per million found in the atmosphere) somehow are more injurious to the prospects of the planet wellbeing than the remaining 402ppm of natural origin - carbon dioxide (comprised of one atom carbon and two atoms oxygen) is an ESSENTIAL TO LIFE gas, the steady and slight increase (appx 6ppm per annum) of which has been reckoned to increase crop yields globally, and also helped to ‘green’ the periphery of desert regions globally, as observed by satellite imaging these past six decades. It should also be borne in mind that global manufacturing giant China alone is calculated to have pumped more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere within the last five years than has been produced GLOBALLY since the Industrial Revolution began, (even in 2003 they emitted three times as much as in 2002). This has yet to show up in increased overall carbon dioxide levels however, and nor will it, as this carbon dioxide is simply absorbed by oceanic algae, phytoplankton and land based vegetation. Carbon dioxide only acts as a warming agent to the planet in concentrations between 50-100 parts per million, and this level was achieved without Man's influence some six hundred million years ago; this level thereafter needed to increase by a further 100% to permit all vegetation to barely begin to grow, ie far earlier than the evolution of dinosaurs, etc, by which time levels were orders of magnitude greater than today, ranging between 2000-7000ppm, resulting in a superabundance of vegetation for the herbivores of their day. This warming effort (constituting around 10% of the total, the other 90% is provided by water vapour and clouds, which we are of course neither able to reduce nor even control, much less set a pretend tax or levy upon) keeps the planet some thirty two degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, thus rendering the planet more agreeably habitable than otherwise; were we to double, triple or indeed increase by tenfold - to typical tolerable ‘submarine-level’ concentrations - it would hardly raise the global temperature by a single degree Celsius. Levels of carbon dioxide beyond 100ppm do not have any significant propensity to increase global temperatures, and in any event increased levels are as a consequence of temperature increases, NOT the cause of same. The temperature rise of the early medieval period some 800 years ago is the cause of present day carbon dioxide level increases - steady away at around 6ppm per annum - despite the industrious efforts of China. To spunk billions on such a clown initiative (- trees absorb practically all of our generated CO2 for free) is indicative of the lunacy of the calibre of idiots running the show. Perhaps Red Ed Milliband can advise us of his intended explanation of quite how the monies allocated are going to make the slightest difference to the incoming cyclical energy levels of the Sun, which are the true cause of the temperature fluctuations of the planet; a perfect correlation between the monthly mean sunspot number and the mean seasonal temperature variation clearly demonstrates that solar activity is the principal driver of global warming/cooling, depending on solar activity levels - in short, it's the Sun, not us. Well over one thousand scientific, peer-reviewed papers have been produced demonstrating the link between Earth’s climate (which produces no heat to speak of sufficient to drive its own climate) and the Sun - our SOLE meaningful means of warming the planet. It has furthermore been comprehensively proven by the two Professors, Dr. William Happer- chief Scientific advisor to three US presidents - and Willem Van Wijngaarden, both at Princeton, USA that carbon dioxide does not and indeed cannot warm the planet in the way that the scammers and charlatans would have us "believe", and yet despite ALL this, rather than ‘looking up’ and finding out basic facts for ourselves, a global industry has been created around this foolish notion; they persist with the myth, trusting in the supposition that no one else was paying much attention to physics and chemistry in school… Shakespeare wrote, ‘What a terrible era, in which idiots govern the blind’..

[@Mookieman071]

barrie i got a tip for u not to lose your scroll on page. right click the car you want to view and press "open new tab" it will open new tab at top of your browser, you could even do it for every car that took your interest

[@BarrieCrampton]

Brilliant thanks

[@stephensalt6787]

Its the dishonesty in the advertising, a range of”up to 374 miles” as they say in the ads, that’s wltp range, immediately knock 20% off that for summer range and another 10% when it’s winter. Can charge from 15% to 80% in twenty minutes, they don’t say that’s only on a 350KwH charger, good luck finding one of those. I thought the advertising standards agency should sift through the BS and stop it. A couple of Federal agencies in the states have taken Tesla to court over misleading range claims.

[@kennethausten]

It's frightening the future. It's gone backwards rather than forwards.

[@GT380man]

The deliberate “de-civilisation” of The West has hardly begun. If it all looks bleak today, note that we’ll look back at these in a decades time as “the good old days”.

[@BlueGorilla111]

Barry can you talk about cost of ev repairs especially the battery/cell cost which is the biggest issue I have if I did consider in the future. Also when do these evs price drop make a purchase become a no brainer, if ever.

[@kalex381]

Just did a similar search on Autotrader,,,Volvo polestar 2 registered 31/12/2023 with just 13 miles for 25,580. Brand new polestar 2 base model retails for 44,950. So this car lost nearly 20,000 for 13 miles in year….😂😂

[@theodavies8754]

Solar would work better in direct sunlight. All these people going on holiday, flying noughts and crosses with vapour that turns to clouds. Must be something different about the fuel these days. The first week of this year there were so many less people going on random destination holidays but its picked up again.

[@shreeshsaurya4203]

Nice video! Good point on leasing which so many people tout as a remedy for depreciation. Don't support motor trade or any other industry- let market forces do that. Some trade/industry should evolve for better and other should perish.

[@Trumpisanong]

A recent survey all European countries found the peoples of the UK to be the unhappiest. After reading your subscriber posts I reluctantly agree it appears that way.

[@BarrieCrampton]

Cheer up

[@15bit62]

In fairness the 500e is just a crap car. It's a textbook example of how to not design and price an EV. Even in Norway we don't buy them: 3274 total sales. For sure there is something very wrong with the way the UK registers new cars though. And has been for a long time - this pre-registration malarky is not an EV only thing.

[@steffydog]

Can I suggest calling some of these dealers, see if the car is still there, as we all know, advertised, doesn’t mean for sale, if the dealer has spots left to use, or just uses the spot as a loss leader, call some, see what’s an actual car for sale.

[@DEPARTMENTOFREDUNDANCYDEPT]

Buy an EV and enjoy catastrophic depreciation, constant range anxiety, the inconvenient charging delays, and the potential for an exciting unplanned incendiary event! What's not to love?

[@ComeJesusChrist]

Dave who takes things on and often argues with the straw men in his head, always beating them and calling them idiots, just released a video about heavy cars and how they should be banned. The old man has a Tesla Model S that is over two tonnes. That’s hundreds of kilos more than the comparable C or E-Class saloon of that year. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[@GregPodster133]

How many Evs will end up in a "Classic Car" magazine in years to come??. Most 'Normal' blokes love cars and driving, even now there are a few iconic cars ( you know what it is from any angle ) about, but why o why are Evs so dam ugly.😂. Bring on the comments from the IGATT brigade. I've Got A Tesla T***😂😂😂.

[@15bit62]

Probably none. I think people will soon have to face a wider reality that the lifestyles we have been living since the industrial revolution are coming to an end. And that will mean very broad changes to how we live, including regressing backwards to view personal transport as more of a luxury than it is today and cars becoming more of a tool and less of a toy (except for rich people). It's disappointing and frustrating for sure, but it is also inevitable unfortunately.

[@SierraNovemberKilo]

There won't be a classic car magazine to begin with. EVs are just like household white goods. I don't think they have a Classic Washing machine/fridge magazine. 1950's design magazine maybe, but not the stuff we've had for 50 years.

[@GregPodster133]

@SierraNovemberKilo it's funny that people lust after old cars ( going back to the beginning of the motor car ). There's not one thing with 'Milk floats' to lust after, Wake up, if it Government led its never in your interest.

[@ComeJesusChrist]

There were electric cars well over 120 years ago. People not knowing this tells us everything we need to know about them. They failed a century ago, fifty years ago and they are designed to fail now, bringing down the whole house!

[@justaman5418]

I'm laughing at the evolution of car batteries in the last 100 years

[@GrahamNewman-mq7gr]

This EV Product was " Too expensive for the market ". Even when they come back as used vehicles, the next level of buyers do not want them ."Same problem, too expensive for the second hand market." You canot put this amount of money into 1 vehicle in your business looking for the NONEXISTANT BUYER. The end result is a HUGE LOSS .Send it to auction TAKE THE PILL. DO NOT REPEAT MISTAKE. There is a good probability the next buyer will loose as well.

[@davidholdsworth1141]

If the Fiat 500 had been listed for 931 days that means it would have been listed on 28th June 2022, not November.

[@BarrieCrampton]

Probably first listed as brand new

[@andyt1048]

Good news with an EV here are some things you don’t need to worry about. Oil changes, cam belt changes, wet belts😂, catalytic converters, replacement exhaust, clutch, brake pads, gearboxes. Misfuelling, MOT emission test 😂, head gaskets, oil leaks, visiting a petrol station and spending £70 to £100, stepping on spilt diesel, getting diesel on your hands. Loads more but to much to list find out for yourself. Don’t believe the FUD.

[@BarrieCrampton]

Depreciation, more than outweighs all those things, but good try, nice deflection technique, FUD that’s the sound of EV residuals hitting the bottom 😂

[@15bit62]

​@@BarrieCrampton That depends very much on where you live though. Depreciation is a mostly subjective effect, as demand is based as much on people's opinion as any hard facts. In sceptical markets depreciation on anything that is new and different tends to be high. In less sceptical markets the same product will hold value better. And to be blunt, the UK has always been a bit weird in terms of car depreciation: It was a standard assumption to expect 50% in 3 years. But in a lot of the rest of europe its more like 50% in 5 years. Same cars. So that same EV you see losing 75% in 3 years in the UK will hold 50% in 5 years in in Norway. Not because there is fundamentally anything wrong with it, but simply because of subjective opinion - Norway likes EVs, the UK doesn't.

[@kennethausten]

It's a no go with insurance costs. They want £1200 from me because of my old age. Then it's short range compared to my deisel. This will terminate most travelling. Also hardly any charging points in this part of Wales. My electrical supply is not suitable I gather for fast charging. Home insurance now has to be notified and the requirements are impossible to meet.. So it's a dead duck. I will never own an Ev. Got beyond caring now. The info i have is based on enquiries as not buying an EV.

[@theodavies8754]

Hanging around a parking lot to fake a demand, the odd squirt of weedkiller doesn't count as servicing.

[@Wee_Langside]

Righthand mouse button > select open in new tab Each time you find a car of interest

[@BarrieCrampton]

Thanks for the tip!

[@Wee_Langside]

​@BarrieCrampton the righthand mouse button is really useful in Windows.

[@theodavies8754]

With digital watches they had to give them away with fuel tokens. People chose the tumblers. I still had one of the tumblers up until last year but they were cheap glass.

[@petew8388]

I have siome brilliant "classic" EV's. Haven't set up the track for years. Loved my Scalextric ..............

[@BarrieCrampton]

Nice one!

[@Chris12211]

So all these cars sitting here from 2022 etc with no miles on. Does that mean if it had a 3 year manufacturers warranty, most of this would be gone before you’ve even purchased it.

[@davidwatkin2993]

Hey Barrie, What has happened to Dan Caesar fully charged on LinkedIn? Has he been banned? What did you report him for?

[@BarrieCrampton]

Not me mate, I rarely use LinkedIn

[@overland_adventure_nz]

At least with the EV market one UK company is doing business again in the form of MG 😂 Yes I do know that they are just another Chinese brand these days. But I heard and come across a number of people that are proud to be supporting British engineering and buying them new down under thinking they’re supporting UK. I don’t have the heart to tell them . I think in a few years time owners of EVS will be having to pay hundreds of dollars to get rid of their electric vehicles to get them away from their house and from the streets because of the fire risk and that I’m not suitable for the use of transport. Good way of deleting one’s income quickly .

[@rayro999]

Noticed an Ami advertised when you were scrolling through Autotrader. Then a Twizzy. Be intersting to see how many of these low cost limited range/MPH EV's are selling for. Are they depreciating similar to full EV's or are the prices holding up? Talked to a UK fiat dealer today, they have no idea when or even if the Topolino will be launched in Britain.

[@AndyK.1]

On a PC you can right click and open in a new window

[@ohyesitsme]

Unfortunately he's got one of those odd apple thingies 😁

[@AndyK.1]

Can’t believe you purchased an EV without home charging !!!

[@petew8388]

Surely all this standing around isn't good for the traction battery.

[@bernardrobinson5942]

Do they keep them charged in stock ?

[@andyt1048]

Got my Leaf 8 years ago for £21,000 we save more than £1500.00 a year on petrol alone, another 6 year and it’s paid for itself 😂 you are right though I can’t afford another EV because I’ve spent all we’ve saved on holidays 😮 and FYI the battery is still at 90%. Good news EV owner.

[@stevemk4st649]

@andyt1048......yeah but you still drive an 8 year old leaf.....enough said really.

[@andrewhill9369]

@@stevemk4st649ouch! 😂

[@eddiejones.redvees]

If you bought one of these cars and kept for a few months with out using and tried to sell it back to the dealer how would he give you for it probably not now a lot

[@zog97xy]

They would refuse it!

[@lancethrust9488]

FOR ME EVS AND MANY OTHERS MANY DONT SEE THEM AS PROPA CARS MORE LIKE MILK FLOATS AND TUC TUCS AND NOBODY WANT TO PAY 5K + FOR ANY MILK FLOAT

[@johnpassey3176]

Surely a positive point in 2025 is that you are remaining calm................so far 😃

[@marcusskyfall]

😂

[@BarrieCrampton]

It’s hard

[@derekhewitson100]

EV's aren't going to work simple. They may work in a few decades when there is more infrastructure, and charging is as cheap as home charging, but that will never happen. Greed is always present.

[@RayTeggie-er7pb]

Why would you want a bodykit made by a slimey bar steward

[@fstop9466]

Combustion motor has 120 years of refinements and improvement, lithium batteries are no substitute.

[@AndyK.1]

And they would be better if they only had 100 😂

[@Cableman-hr2uu]

totally normal, even though you gift it to me, I don't want it, not to say buying it.

[@guardcharlie2576]

Ong the dealers must be tearing their hair out, when are the going to grow up and say NO more

[@alexharvey7102]

Saw a lot of transit custom Evs coming up on auto trader , was pretty tempted but I heard the range is shite

[@LunchSays]

100 miles. checked it me self.

[@davidmarshall5596]

​@@LunchSays100 miles 😂😂😂😂🎉

[@davidforbes6250]

Some people need some bsp treatment to help them wake up to these ev wonders. I'd be interested to know how many different ev vehicles are actually available as in manufactured.

[@dubsydubs5234]

I'll be prepared to buy one when they're free and it comes with free charging, it might be worth the fire risk then but only for me not the family.

[@thetruth7633]

I will take it for a tenner :)

[@billsmith281]

Charge your EV with solsr?? Unless you have enough solar panels that would probably cover a football pitch, it isnt going to happen. An average portable solar panel can produce maybe 100 watts per hour, so trying to charge a 5 kw battery would take literally weeks....at best.

[@BarrieCrampton]

I only do a few miles a day now I’m retired, if that

[@WeAreAllDoomed-n5i]

All these EVs need to copy Jaguar! Paint them pink and you know what would be flying off the shelves!

[@justso1823]

They are very temptingly cheap

[@PhilJordan-y3m]

The EV s are just taking up valuable selling space on forecourts

[@stevebeever2442]

Have a look at those Maxus. Brand new with over 20k knocked off the price

[@rockinginafreeworld3256]

Work must be slack for Barry . He is sitting at his office banging on about EVs . If people don’t want them then don’t buy them, it’s that simple.

[@BarrieCrampton]

ive retired, and EVs are damaging the industry that i love, i feel iys my duty to warn people

[@vacation_generation]

EV's will sell when they give me the same benefits as my ICE car🤣 Can I go from South to North England, e.g. Milton Keynes to Manchester and back in one charge. Can I tow my caravan from Milton Keynes to Northern Spain? I reckon I am going to face challenges? I want confidence that I can refuel/recharge along the way and that I isn't a massive inconvenience....which I think it will be. Solve these and I will drive any bleedin' propulsion system. I don't care as long as it's affordable and convenient🤣 Currently I can refuel in 10 mins at a billion refuelling stations all over Europe and get on my way. Never worry about running out and carrying on. Only a dickhead runs out of fuel and gets stuck🤣....which I have done. But I can go buy and fill a Jerry can and rectify my problem. What about an EV? Hmmm.....not sure about recharging a car thats got no charge and stuck in a lay-by ..........🤣

[@jasonaris5316]

The whole thing is happening as they don’t want you driving anywhere let alone to Spain or anywhere else in Europe so enjoy while you can

[@gendy943]

What you want Barry is someone who'll back you to take on a Wuling dealership .... 4 doors/ 4seats & up to 13 kWh battery .. & probably about £6000. Have a look here on KZbin. The place for BEVs is city runabouts like the Ami.Big cars like e-trons must be lugging about a 75kWh battery that weighs 15cwt with added hardware/software ,multiple heat sensors & heating & cooling systems for the battery. None of this adds up! Huge fields of wind turbines all out at sea ,thousands of acres of solar panels & multiple nuclear power stations at God only knows what cost to build & all to generate the power needed. It's a nonsense . As to ZEV - who dreamt this up ? Johnson ?

[@freeforester1717]

The real kicker is that it's not even necessary, much less actually achievable. When considering matters surrounding the current political narratives of the day, we should bear in mind the wise words of past figures of some merit; the American man of letters Henry Brooks Adams observed that 'Practical politics consists in ignoring facts'; Churchill famously noted that 'United wishes and goodwill cannot overcome brute facts; panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it; but there it is'. Burns was a little more frank: 'Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed'. I’d like to see the scientific proof or evidence that man-made carbon dioxide emissions (globally accounting for 18 of the 420 odd parts per million found in the atmosphere) somehow are more injurious to the prospects of the planet wellbeing than the remaining 402ppm of natural origin - carbon dioxide (comprised of one atom carbon and two atoms oxygen) is an ESSENTIAL TO LIFE gas, the steady and slight increase (appx 6ppm per annum) of which has been reckoned to increase crop yields globally, and also helped to ‘green’ the periphery of desert regions globally, as observed by satellite imaging these past six decades. It should also be borne in mind that global manufacturing giant China alone is calculated to have pumped more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere within the last five years than has been produced GLOBALLY since the Industrial Revolution began, (even in 2003 they emitted three times as much as in 2002). This has yet to show up in increased overall carbon dioxide levels however, and nor will it, as this carbon dioxide is simply absorbed by oceanic algae, phytoplankton and land based vegetation. Carbon dioxide only acts as a warming agent to the planet in concentrations between 50-100 parts per million, and this level was achieved without Man's influence some six hundred million years ago; this level thereafter needed to increase by a further 100% to permit all vegetation to barely begin to grow, ie far earlier than the evolution of dinosaurs, etc, by which time levels were orders of magnitude greater than today, ranging between 2000-7000ppm, resulting in a superabundance of vegetation for the herbivores of their day. This warming effort (constituting around 10% of the total, the other 90% is provided by water vapour and clouds, which we are of course neither able to reduce nor even control, much less set a pretend tax or levy upon) keeps the planet some thirty two degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, thus rendering the planet more agreeably habitable than otherwise; were we to double, triple or indeed increase by tenfold - to typical tolerable ‘submarine-level’ concentrations - it would hardly raise the global temperature by a single degree Celsius. Levels of carbon dioxide beyond 100ppm do not have any significant propensity to increase global temperatures, and in any event increased levels are as a consequence of temperature increases, NOT the cause of same. The temperature rise of the early medieval period some 800 years ago is the cause of present day carbon dioxide level increases - steady away at around 6ppm per annum - despite the industrious efforts of China. To spunk billions on such a clown initiative (- trees absorb practically all of our generated CO2 for free) is indicative of the lunacy of the calibre of idiots running the show. Perhaps Red Ed Milliband can advise us of his intended explanation of quite how the monies allocated are going to make the slightest difference to the incoming cyclical energy levels of the Sun, which are the true cause of the temperature fluctuations of the planet; a perfect correlation between the monthly mean sunspot number and the mean seasonal temperature variation clearly demonstrates that solar activity is the principal driver of global warming/cooling, depending on solar activity levels - in short, it's the Sun, not us. Well over one thousand scientific, peer-reviewed papers have been produced demonstrating the link between Earth’s climate (which produces no heat to speak of sufficient to drive its own climate) and the Sun - our SOLE meaningful means of warming the planet. It has furthermore been comprehensively proven by the two Professors, Dr. William Happer- chief Scientific advisor to three US presidents - and Willem Van Wijngaarden, both at Princeton, USA that carbon dioxide does not and indeed cannot warm the planet in the way that the scammers and charlatans would have us "believe", and yet despite ALL this, rather than ‘looking up’ and finding out basic facts for ourselves, a global industry has been created around this foolish notion; they persist with the myth, trusting in the supposition that no one else was paying much attention to physics and chemistry in school… Shakespeare wrote, ‘What a terrible era, in which idiots govern the blind’..

[@vincent-lr6io]

ev is the future give it 10 years it will improve..

[@GT380man]

You won’t be permitted to own a car of any kind in ten years time. In any case, the mass manufacturing capacity of U.K. & EU corporations will be shadows of their former selves, if they exist at all, in a lot less than a decade. Even if you own an EV, in ten years, grid capacity will limit home charging and public charging will be prohibitively expensive. They don’t want us moving around and they have the tools to ensure this happens.

[@BarrieCrampton]

the motor trade will be long dead by then if this continues

[@emmacohen3926]

Has anyone calculated how many miles you have to cover,,before you break even on an ev, bearing in mind some cost 30/40 k MORE than an ice vehicle Barry ?👍👍

[@BarrieCrampton]

Great point!

[@sassasins031]

Vote Reform

[@freeforester1717]

They are the only party who understands that the entire Net Zero nonsense is a scam, and based on false temperature readings from often non existent monitoring stations, see Tom Nelson podcast no. 272. When considering matters surrounding the current political narratives of the day, we should bear in mind the wise words of past figures of some merit; the American man of letters Henry Brooks Adams observed that 'Practical politics consists in ignoring facts'; Churchill famously noted that 'United wishes and goodwill cannot overcome brute facts; panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it; but there it is'. Burns was a little more frank: 'Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed'. I’d like to see the scientific proof or evidence that man-made carbon dioxide emissions (globally accounting for 18 of the 420 odd parts per million found in the atmosphere) somehow are more injurious to the prospects of the planet wellbeing than the remaining 402ppm of natural origin - carbon dioxide (comprised of one atom carbon and two atoms oxygen) is an ESSENTIAL TO LIFE gas, the steady and slight increase (appx 6ppm per annum) of which has been reckoned to increase crop yields globally, and also helped to ‘green’ the periphery of desert regions globally, as observed by satellite imaging these past six decades. It should also be borne in mind that global manufacturing giant China alone is calculated to have pumped more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere within the last five years than has been produced GLOBALLY since the Industrial Revolution began, (even in 2003 they emitted three times as much as in 2002). This has yet to show up in increased overall carbon dioxide levels however, and nor will it, as this carbon dioxide is simply absorbed by oceanic algae, phytoplankton and land based vegetation. Carbon dioxide only acts as a warming agent to the planet in concentrations between 50-100 parts per million, and this level was achieved without Man's influence some six hundred million years ago; this level thereafter needed to increase by a further 100% to permit all vegetation to barely begin to grow, ie far earlier than the evolution of dinosaurs, etc, by which time levels were orders of magnitude greater than today, ranging between 2000-7000ppm, resulting in a superabundance of vegetation for the herbivores of their day. This warming effort (constituting around 10% of the total, the other 90% is provided by water vapour and clouds, which we are of course neither able to reduce nor even control, much less set a pretend tax or levy upon) keeps the planet some thirty two degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, thus rendering the planet more agreeably habitable than otherwise; were we to double, triple or indeed increase by tenfold - to typical tolerable ‘submarine-level’ concentrations - it would hardly raise the global temperature by a single degree Celsius. Levels of carbon dioxide beyond 100ppm do not have any significant propensity to increase global temperatures, and in any event increased levels are as a consequence of temperature increases, NOT the cause of same. The temperature rise of the early medieval period some 800 years ago is the cause of present day carbon dioxide level increases - steady away at around 6ppm per annum - despite the industrious efforts of China. To spunk billions on such a clown initiative (- trees absorb practically all of our generated CO2 for free) is indicative of the lunacy of the calibre of idiots running the show. Perhaps Red Ed Milliband can advise us of his intended explanation of quite how the monies allocated are going to make the slightest difference to the incoming cyclical energy levels of the Sun, which are the true cause of the temperature fluctuations of the planet; a perfect correlation between the monthly mean sunspot number and the mean seasonal temperature variation clearly demonstrates that solar activity is the principal driver of global warming/cooling, depending on solar activity levels - in short, it's the Sun, not us. Well over one thousand scientific, peer-reviewed papers have been produced demonstrating the link between Earth’s climate (which produces no heat to speak of sufficient to drive its own climate) and the Sun - our SOLE meaningful means of warming the planet. It has furthermore been comprehensively proven by the two Professors, Dr. William Happer- chief Scientific advisor to three US presidents - and Willem Van Wijngaarden, both at Princeton, USA that carbon dioxide does not and indeed cannot warm the planet in the way that the scammers and charlatans would have us "believe", and yet despite ALL this, rather than ‘looking up’ and finding out basic facts for ourselves, a global industry has been created around this foolish notion; they persist with the myth, trusting in the supposition that no one else was paying much attention to physics and chemistry in school… Shakespeare wrote, ‘What a terrible era, in which idiots govern the blind’..

[@tonyupton8980]

The net zero zealots and their few parts per million is screwing everything. Carbon doesn't last forever

[@freeforester1717]

They are completely misleading the public. When considering matters surrounding the current political narratives of the day, we should bear in mind the wise words of past figures of some merit; the American man of letters Henry Brooks Adams observed that 'Practical politics consists in ignoring facts'; Churchill famously noted that 'United wishes and goodwill cannot overcome brute facts; panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it; but there it is'. Burns was a little more frank: 'Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed'. I’d like to see the scientific proof or evidence that man-made carbon dioxide emissions (globally accounting for 18 of the 420 odd parts per million found in the atmosphere) somehow are more injurious to the prospects of the planet wellbeing than the remaining 402ppm of natural origin - carbon dioxide (comprised of one atom carbon and two atoms oxygen) is an ESSENTIAL TO LIFE gas, the steady and slight increase (appx 6ppm per annum) of which has been reckoned to increase crop yields globally, and also helped to ‘green’ the periphery of desert regions globally, as observed by satellite imaging these past six decades. It should also be borne in mind that global manufacturing giant China alone is calculated to have pumped more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere within the last five years than has been produced GLOBALLY since the Industrial Revolution began, (even in 2003 they emitted three times as much as in 2002). This has yet to show up in increased overall carbon dioxide levels however, and nor will it, as this carbon dioxide is simply absorbed by oceanic algae, phytoplankton and land based vegetation. Carbon dioxide only acts as a warming agent to the planet in concentrations between 50-100 parts per million, and this level was achieved without Man's influence some six hundred million years ago; this level thereafter needed to increase by a further 100% to permit all vegetation to barely begin to grow, ie far earlier than the evolution of dinosaurs, etc, by which time levels were orders of magnitude greater than today, ranging between 2000-7000ppm, resulting in a superabundance of vegetation for the herbivores of their day. This warming effort (constituting around 10% of the total, the other 90% is provided by water vapour and clouds, which we are of course neither able to reduce nor even control, much less set a pretend tax or levy upon) keeps the planet some thirty two degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, thus rendering the planet more agreeably habitable than otherwise; were we to double, triple or indeed increase by tenfold - to typical tolerable ‘submarine-level’ concentrations - it would hardly raise the global temperature by a single degree Celsius. Levels of carbon dioxide beyond 100ppm do not have any significant propensity to increase global temperatures, and in any event increased levels are as a consequence of temperature increases, NOT the cause of same. The temperature rise of the early medieval period some 800 years ago is the cause of present day carbon dioxide level increases - steady away at around 6ppm per annum - despite the industrious efforts of China. To spunk billions on such a clown initiative (- trees absorb practically all of our generated CO2 for free) is indicative of the lunacy of the calibre of idiots running the show. Perhaps Red Ed Milliband can advise us of his intended explanation of quite how the monies allocated are going to make the slightest difference to the incoming cyclical energy levels of the Sun, which are the true cause of the temperature fluctuations of the planet; a perfect correlation between the monthly mean sunspot number and the mean seasonal temperature variation clearly demonstrates that solar activity is the principal driver of global warming/cooling, depending on solar activity levels - in short, it's the Sun, not us. Well over one thousand scientific, peer-reviewed papers have been produced demonstrating the link between Earth’s climate (which produces no heat to speak of sufficient to drive its own climate) and the Sun - our SOLE meaningful means of warming the planet. It has furthermore been comprehensively proven by the two Professors, Dr. William Happer- chief Scientific advisor to three US presidents - and Willem Van Wijngaarden, both at Princeton, USA that carbon dioxide does not and indeed cannot warm the planet in the way that the scammers and charlatans would have us "believe", and yet despite ALL this, rather than ‘looking up’ and finding out basic facts for ourselves, a global industry has been created around this foolish notion; they persist with the myth, trusting in the supposition that no one else was paying much attention to physics and chemistry in school… Shakespeare wrote, ‘What a terrible era, in which idiots govern the blind’..

[@gavinwhite9743]

Wow…in from 2022 there are 30 electric cars with less than 500 miles, and 40 petrol cars. I guess that means petrol is dead too.

[@robertapenay]

Its all for your 15 minute cities that will be all around in 2030, ask brsk they will be in charge of turning them off every other weekend, or when they have reached the allowed millage for the week or month