The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

I recently announced in my newsletter that the Government was going to pull the plug (get it) on electric vehicle and hybrid grants in November. Hybrid cars that have an electric, zero-emission, range of less than 70 miles were to have their grants reduced to zero and the grants for full electric vehicles were to drop from £4,500 to £3,500.

Whilst drivers brought forward their purchases to benefit from the last of the grants the Government forgot to mention that there was a pot of grant available and when that pot went so did the old grants and the new grants were to kick in.

So imagine the shock when car dealers and leasing company staff rocked up for work on Monday to find that the new grant structure was effective from Monday morning. Presumably, because the old pot of grant money had gone by Sunday night. The Government revealed that qualifying car sales increased by 6 fold following the Government’s announcement.

I covered the announcement in a previous blog/post so I won’t repeat but we are already behind most of Europe when it comes to charger infrastructure and the take-up of hybrids and EV’s is still low even though the higher uptake of the two is the reason given by the Government for people buying hybrids and EV’s. More would take electric vehicles if there was less anxiety over the range, hence the popularity of hybrids.

Personally, I think that removing the grants on hybrids is a bad move. Many used it as a stepping stone towards a full electric but they are now being pushed out of the market and back into petrol and diesel cars purely because of cost – retro-move! By Graham Hill

If you’re like me and constantly on a diet, which clearly isn’t working or we wouldn’t still be on one, we fool ourselves into believing that we stick exactly to the diet but in truth, we have all the right intentions but when it comes to the crunch we fall short and succumb to chocolate, biscuits, cakes and much more. So whilst we know what we should be doing we do the complete opposite!

It seems that this is the case when it comes to the switch away from fossil fuels to planet-saving alternatively powered cars such as hybrids and electric cars. To prove the point fleet management company CLM carried out a survey amongst car drivers. 400 drivers were asked a series of questions with the following results: 24% said that they would consider a fully electric car, 32% said the same for a plug-in-hybrid and 36% said they would consider a conventional hybrid.

However, in the real world where people swear they are sticking to their diet – but aren’t, these people who say they would go green or greener with their next car are saying it because they want people to believe they actually care about the planet. The truth is that they do care but money talks and if it’s cheaper to buy and run a diesel or a petrol car – that’s the choice made for them.

So back here in the real world, just 0.57% of the cars registered are pure electric, 1.83% are plug-in-hybrids and 3.38% conventional hybrids. That is crazy! Are we all fooling ourselves into believing we can continue as we are because everyone else will switch over to cleaner cars or is it simply down to cost? Or could it be, as CLM MD John Lawrence alluded to – simply down to education?

They found that only 26% of those surveyed could identify a plug-in hybrid whilst 38% could identify a conventional hybrid. On the other hand, 64% could identify a fully electric car. Whilst most of us look on and see how cars are evolving at a rapid rate we struggle with understanding how the vehicles work and how they improve the environment.  If your car usage consists of several short trips around town every day then a Plug-In Hybrid or electric car would be the best but forget the electric and possibly the Plug-In Hybrid if your daily usage requires you to drive long distances.

You could end up spending many a pleasant hour sitting on the hard shoulder of a motorway. So whilst most of us would like to think we are environmentally conscious, in truth we could all do a lot more to bring pollution levels down but for each of us the question is – at what cost? By Graham Hill

If you thought that there was ever healthy competition amongst car manufacturers to the benefit of consumers – think again. They work much more closely than you think – often to the detriment of consumers.

In one case six truck manufacturers were found to have colluded in order to coordinate the pricing and release of new technologies needed to meet stricter emissions standards and when the new tech. should be released. The collusion lasted from 1997 – 2011 and ended up with total fines of £3.4 billion being issued against all of the participating manufacturers by European Commission.

The Competition Commissioners carried out a raid on the 6 companies which included Daimler, Daf, Iveco, Volvo and Renault. Scania decided not to settle with the Commission and were fined a year later for being a member of the Cartel. MAN was also part of the Cartel but as they had cooperated and provided evidence against the others they were immune from any fines.

A report in Fleet News revealed that following the investigation into the truck firms, the Commission, working on some inside information, decided to look further afield and found that German manufacturers, i.e. Daimler (Mercedes), BMW and VW Group had colluded to control the rollout of new technology for cleaner cars. Last month it was widely reported that the European Commission was carrying out an investigation into the allegations.

The antitrust investigators have already uncovered proof that the ‘Circle Of 5’ had held meetings to control the introduction of emission-reducing technology. The circle of 5 included Daimler (Mercedes), BMW, VW, Audi and Porsche. VW and Daimler have assisted the investigations and by being whistleblowers have avoided any fines. That certainly doesn’t seem right!

In October offices of several German car makers were raided and papers and other evidence removed. The German press suggested that there was evidence showing that the car makers had colluded to restrict the size of AdBlue tanks in order to reduce cost and space but potentially cause drivers problems.

Original AdBlue tanks were 35 litres that could clean emissions for up to 18,500 miles. In the end, after getting their heads together they ended up fitting tanks with just 8-litre capacity. The commission is currently investigating claims that the companies concerned colluded to limit the development and roll out of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Systems to reduce harmful Nitrogen Dioxide emissions from passenger cars with diesel engines.

They will also be investigating claims that the German 5 did the same with ‘Otto’ particulate filters (OPT’s) which reduce harmful particulate emissions from passenger cars with petrol engines. The Commission has stated that it aims to establish whether the conduct of Daimler, BMW and VW have violated anti-trust rules that ‘prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices, including agreements to limit or control technical development’.

Having said that the Commission said ‘At this stage, the Commission has no indication that the parties coordinated with each other in relation to the use of illegal defeat devices to cheat regulatory testing’. According to the report, the 5 were discussing many things at the meetings including the speed that convertible roofs should open and close, common quality requirements for car parts – I interpret that as deciding how long cars should last.

They also discussed common testing procedures, car safety developments and even the speed that cruise control will work. All very worrying. In closing, the Commission indicated that manufacturers could possibly put up a defence as the rules allow for cooperation between manufacturers in the name of safety and improved productivity. It begs the question as to what will happen after Brexit with no common oversight by the Commission when it comes to cars being sold in the UK? By Graham Hill

You should do if you are a driver of a fairly new diesel car. However, according to Fleet News, less than a fifth of drivers are aware of the existence of a tank of AdBlue in their cars and what it is there for? They were quoting research by Radius Payment Solutions (RPS).

RPS, a fuel card business, investigated driver knowledge of AdBlue which revealed, despite most new diesel vehicles having a tank, 90% had never used AdBlue.

The survey also found that despite associated environmental and health impacts, more than 25% had no idea about the benefits of the product.

As I’ve explained in the past, AdBlue is a fluid treatment that is injected into the exhaust gasses. It can filter out more than 90% of harmful NOx emissions converting into steam and nitrogen, resulting in less pollution.

They suggest that the AdBlue tanks need to be filled every six months, often during servicing, however, the rate at which cars use AdBlue varies depending on how economically they are driven, the engine size and total/average mileage.

This means that business drivers who tend to be on the road for longer will need to understand what AdBlue does and certainly where the filler cap is. The report says that average consumption of AdBlue is around one litre every 600 miles but could reach up to a litre every 350 miles depending on how the car is being driven.

The range between refills ranges from 3,000 and 12,000 miles, meaning some drivers will top-up their AdBlue reservoir at least once between normal servicing. My car is now 3 years old and I have never had to top my car up between services. Some manufacturers offer larger AdBlue tanks as an option.

Jonathan Haseler, Regional Director – UK at Radius Payment Solutions, said: “For something that should be a regular maintenance check like filling oil and screen wash, the findings are certainly surprising. Our cards help facilitate the purchase of AdBlue, making it easier for companies to adhere to emissions standards whilst offering consistently transparent pricing.”

Bit of a sales pitch there. What people also aren’t aware of are the constituant parts to AdBlue. It consists of urea, found in Urine, pigs urine to be more precise. I’m so glad I shared that. What the report doesn’t mention is that your car won’t run if you run out of AdBlue.

Whilst you should have plenty of warning you should know where the filler cap is, sometimes by the fuel cap sometimes in the boot. The car will warn you when it is out and as long as you don’t stop the engine it should continue on. But as soon as you stop the engine it will no longer start again till the AdBlue is topped up. By Graham Hill

New rules came into force in May with the most controversial being the visual test applied to diesel cars. I mentioned in earlier posts that the examiner now has to look at the tailpipe of any diesel to see if there is smoke, of any colour, emitting from the exhaust. If there is it’s an immediate fail.

The other visual check is for any tampering of the particulate filter. Any signs of tampering is also an immediate fail. Following the new tests the Prestige Motor Warehouse carried out a survey amongst 50 MOT stations across the UK and found that in the first 3 months following the rule changes the number of cars failing their MOT testa has increased by 24%.

With other rules either tightened or introduced there was also a 12% increase in petrol engine failures. Other new checks included under-inflated tyres, contaminated brake fluid, and fluid leaks, these being responsible for several of the failures. There is certainly no reason to fail on tyre pressure, a quick visit to a garage before going for the test should sort that out. By Graham Hill

When I first started driving, a few more years ago than I would care to contemplate, we had a pretty wide choice of power source to drive our cars. We had ummm – petrol or ummm petrol. Trucks had diesel engines but in those days they had to have a diesel pump in the operators depot because you couldn’t buy diesel at a garage.

I think my first experience of a diesel car was when a neighbour had a diesel Peugeot 505 which you could hear turn into our road – a good half mile away. It sounded like a bag of bolts! Of course, things changed but whilst many drivers chose diesel cars because they were economical and with better sound insulation you couldn’t hear the engine in the car it meant we were stuck with a simple choice – diesel or petrol.

Then along came LPG. It was great for chuggers like the Land Rovers that might squeeze 10mpg from their diesel engine with the wind behind them, driving down a one in one hill with all the seats removed. Suddenly driving a Land Rover other than across a ploughed field made sense once you added LPG. But with so much space being taken up by the fuel tank it never really challenged petrol or diesel, especially in a family saloon.

Of course these days, whilst you can still buy LPG at some garages you now have even more sources of fuel to propel you down the road. Petrol, diesel, petrol hybrid, diesel hybrid, plug-in hybrid, electric vehicles and the hydrogen cell that was pretty much wiped out by the introduction of electric.

However, it would seem that hydrogen isn’t dead. Manufacturers are now designing and developing hydrogen/electric hybrids. The first out of the blocks is the Hyundai Nexo which uses the hydrogen cell to drive a motor to create electricity. They suggest that the car will have a range of 414 miles, top speed of 111mph and a 0-62 in 9.2 seconds. Sounds great but the price tag of £60,000 might put a few people off!

It’s a nice looking SUV that is similar in size and looks to an Audi Q5. Would certainly solve the range and re-fuelling constraints of electric cars. Will this idea catch on – adding even more choice to an already confusing range of power plants? Haven’t got a clue just like I haven’t got a clue as to whether we will be in or out of Europe next year! Time will tell. By Graham Hill

These days most of us are of the opinion that new cars, whatever their make, are all pretty reliable. After all, it’s in the manufacturer and dealer’s interest to make sure that you don’t suffer breakdowns in the first 30 days and end up handing the car back for a full refund.

This resulting in the dealer suffering the massive depreciation that happens the moment the tyres hit the road when the car turns from being new to second hand. Beyond the first 30 days with strong warranties and consumer rights one would think that the manufacturers have been doing everything to ensure that the vehicles are fault free. But What Car has found this not to be the case.

Which is disappointing for those buying new cars as opposed to used because often the decision to buy a new car is based on the perceived greater reliability of a new car over a used car. Of course, What Car must justify its spend on these sorts of surveys so one would expect a degree of exaggeration but it doesn’t hide the fact that 30% of their survey respondents, driving cars that were 4 years old or less, said that they had suffered a fault within the last 12 months.

Some cars come with a 3-year warranty whilst others cover up to 7 years but even so only 52% of those with faults had them repaired under warranty. 22% had to pay bills of £101-£200 whilst 6% had bills in excess of £1,500. Their report goes into great detail and covers 159 models over 31 brands.

I have to say that some of the findings were surprising and certainly didn’t agree with the feelings of some of my customers but if you are thinking of buying or leasing a car the report  may be of interest. The October edition of What Car is still available on the newsagent’s shelves.

In answer to the question – which is the most reliable? Up top 4 years old it is Suzuki followed by Lexus. Over 4 years old Lexus followed by Dacia. Bottom of the pile, 20% lower than the next up was Tesla at 57.3% reliability with Land Rover second from bottom at 76.5%. By Graham Hill

For those concerned about the environment, the new Worldwide harmonised Light vehicle Test Procedures (WLTP) were considered to be well overdue when you consider how easy it was to fiddle the emissions test under the old regime known as NEDC. It wasn’t just VW fitting equipment that could be switched over during the emissions tests to give a false reading.

Others fitted undersized wheels and stuck tape around doors, bonnets and boots in order to avoid any drag. So now we have the cars being properly tested we see emissions levels increasing. The cars are the same but the emissions levels have increased due to more accurate testing. Which is fine unless you happen to be a company car driver.

As an interim measure and so as not to sting company car drivers for driving the same car the revenue has applied a conversion equation to bring the CO2 emissions back to where they were under the old tests. However, the CO2 levels are still around 10% higher than previous thereby increasing the BIK tax on cars that drivers may have been driving for the past 2 years and the new cars are generally 20% higher so replacing a like for like car could increase your benefit in kind tax substantially.

Whilst the fleet industry has called on the Government to amend the BIK tax tables so as not to penalise drivers of company cars, as usual, they’ve done naff all. This has led to a move towards car allowances allowing drivers to select their own car, firstly to save the BIK tax but also allow them to potentially drive better cars. As I’ve reported before let’s say that a company negotiates preferential terms with a dealer to take 200 Ford Mondeos a year.

As a result, they receive 25%  discount on all cars that is fed into their contract hire rate. Normally the best a consumer would receive is a discount of 15% built into the contract hire rate but if a new model is coming out the dealer and the manufacturer may allow a discount and bonus of 35% to be built into the contract hire rates.

This means that a consumer could achieve a lower rate than some of the biggest fleets in the country. Or maybe a Vauxhall Insignia or Mazda 6 works out cheaper because for the same reasons the rates are incredibly low. So for employees, the time may have come when they hand back their company cars and take a car allowance then talk to me to get them into a low rate car. By Graham Hill

A couple of weeks ago I was asked to appear on ITV’s Tonight programme that went out last Thursday (6^th September). However, with just half an hour available and the main theme of the programme the decision that drivers face as to whether to choose a petrol, diesel, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric car next they dropped what was to be a section on finance.

All had their merits, petrol – short around the town trips, diesel for high mileage drivers, hybrids in town but with no ability to plug the car in at home or at work, plug in’s if you have access to electricity and electric for those on low mileage in a city subject to congestion charges with easy access to chargers.

However, they sent a couple on a trip from their home in the north to a party in the south of England in an electric car. A trip that would normally take 4 hours but actually ended up taking over 6 hours, making them 2 hours late. The reason, finding somewhere to charge up the battery en-route. They found at service areas chargers that were broken as well as chargers that couldn’t fast charge. It seemed like a nightmare and got the couple very irritated and worried that they could end up stranded.

One gentleman with a plug-in hybrid found that he needed to charge his car for 6.5 hours at home using the domestic power supply in order to be able to cover something like 25 miles on just the electric motor, think he should change to Duracell Ultra batteries! The programme also questioned the environmental differences claiming, as many others have, that the manufacture of electric vehicles and their batteries come at an increased environmental cost and they still affect the environment as there are particulate emissions from tyres and brakes.

So whilst not all great news electric is the direction of travel and since BP bought out Chargemaster EV charging network we will see many more fast charge points with the next generation able to ‘fill up’ a car in just 5 minutes. Added to which there are already cars that can be used as electricity storage devices. Left plugged into the house electrics any stored electricity could be used when the cost of energy is high then charge the car overnight when energy is low.

Lots happening but I’m yet to be convinced. And the idea of charge points in lamp posts – as was shown on the programme is likely to end up with drivers in A&E as they come to blows as to who was at the lamp post first and whose needs are greater. By Graham Hill

Speeding: You may or may not be aware of ‘speeding buffer zones’ applied by the police. Essentially if there is a speed limit of say 70mph the police allow a buffer zone of 10% + 2mph making the acceptable speed 79 miles per hour (70 + 7 + 2 = 79). In the case of 30 miles per hour that would be 35mph.

I should add at this stage that this has always been advisory so you shouldn’t assume that the speed limit in a 30mph area is automatically 35mph. It is discretionary so if you were doing 35 miles per hour whilst passing a school with kids everywhere you would probably be fined. However, the ‘buffer’ is currently being reviewed by senior police officers and could well change.

At a recent Police Federation Conference, Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, the National Police Chief’s Council’s lead on road policing announced the possible change of attitude. Ashe pointed out, drivers should not be surprised if they are fined for doing 33 miles per hour in a 30mph zone because they are speeding – simple as that.

In answer to the proposal officers warned that this would increase the number of cases they need to deal with and they don’t have the capacity or the capability to deal with the increased workload. Watch this space and don’t assume that the 10% + 2mph rule will always apply. Repairs: Breakdown firm Green Flag has carried out a survey suggesting that motorists are overspending to the tune of £3.4 billion every year on garage repairs.

On average drivers pay £90 per annum more than they should with 4out of 5 men and 90% of women not feeling confident when confronted with the cost of the repairs and knowing if it is correct. In the same report Green Flag revealed that 39% of motorists had no idea what the annual MOT test involves. Not good. By Graham Hill