VW Scandal

[Yorkie]

Warning - might induce drowsiness - burn before reading!

I always find it a little odd when motorists - including myself - obsess about MPG, as though the marginal difference in fuel costs between one car and another or between stated MPG and actual MPG is a significant factor in the running costs of a car, which it isn't. By far the biggest factor is depreciation, followed by servicing, (unless you do it yourself, which few do on modern cars), followed by insurance. If motorists were truly concerned about minimising fuel costs, they'd drive in a very different manner from that which most do - they'd read the road better, anticipating traffic light changes, they'd accelerate more gently, keep their speed down, keep their distance, and brake less and so forth. But they don't. (Though I dare say that all of us on here will say that we do!).

Let's assume that a car driven carefully would do 45mpg, the driver does 12,000 miles a year, and petrol/diesel costs £5.00 per gallon. That's 266 gallons a year- £1,333. But then the driver is always in a hurry, and drives as though he's sat on a pineapple, so that it ups his consumption by 10%. That would add to his fuel bill by £133 a year - £2.50 a week. During that year, his car will have depreciated by several thousand pounds, or if it's several years old, and has little residual value, will probably have mounting repair costs - types, exhausts, batteries, clutch, etc, so £2.50 a week saving by having a lighter right foot isn't going to be at the forefront of his mind.

I think that most of us rationalise our buying decisions, believing that we're objective, shrewd, and wise. Fact is that the psychology of car buying decisions - brand image, brand loyalty etc, isn't very rational - it's highly subjective and largely based on 'cognitive dissonance', which is why discussions about cars and branding generate more heat than light. Few of us are likely to be swayed into believing that we weren't so wise after all:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitiv...nance.html

Luxury brands put a lot of effort into reducing what's known as PPCD' - 'post purchase cognitive dissonance', to reassure buyers that they made the right decision.

It's not a new thing - marketeers have been at it for donkey's ages:

https://abranddayout.wordpress.com/2010/...s-honesty/

Radio wise - Frank Murphy was at it  back in the 1930s: 'A First Class Job', 'Murphy Mad' etc. But then he was in advertising before he was into radios.

As to Skodas, my Fabia is - like Keith's Yeti - on the list of models that will require 'tweaking'. I recently took it in for its 30,000 service and asked if they could do the mod at the same time. The rely was 'no - it won't be until early 2017 at least'.   So I won't have to worry about that as I'll be changing the car in September when it will be three years old. I've rarely kept a car longer than that as I think they're past their best. Nothing to do with the economic arguments for and against that decision.  It's a 1.6L diesel, and has averaged 54 MPG. Unlikely to get another diesel - might get another Fabia though, ('small car of the year', 2016) but they're 1.3L 3-cylinder engines now, which seems a bit whacky.

The number of variants on any make or model of new car cars is now just ludicrous - you have to go through a 'configurator' process: Bluetooth yes/no, cruise control yes/no, rear radar yes/no/ electrically adjustable heated wing mirrors yes/no, auto-dipping rear view mirror yes/no, spare wheel yes/no, metallic yes/no, and on and on and on... I've just looked at a Vauxhall Astra on their website - ludicrous process, just don't have the time to faff about.  And no - I'm  not bothered if it 'features' a 'leather 3-spoke steering wheel' - why would I be?

Waffled and dribbled Yorkie.