My first reaction is when asked 'what are you driving these days' would you want to answer Leapmotor
(Arthur Daley)
Leapmotor
- Thread starter Elsa TLC
- Start date
(Arthur Daley)
Two years later the Rover P4 75 came out with ali doors, bonnet and boot. Stayed that way until the very last 110s in 1963/64.
Not stated but mine is about once a month or so. Not likely to make much difference as long as it's done sometimes.
It does waste electricity so not something that you would want to do often.
No. Left over partial truths from ancient NiCad batteries where frequent partial recharging did reduce capacity.
Not applicable to any lithium-ion batteries. Just charge as much as required when needed.
Mine has an NMC battery. The manufacturer's handbook is likely to have the best information in it. Mine advises 20-80% unless going on a long trip. The thing is, the manufacturer has to honour the 8 year / 100,000 mile warranty no matter how you treat the battery, so the cars have heir own built-in safeguards to prevent you giving it too hard a time. He has to assume that you're going to rapid-charge to 100% every day and run it down to 5%.
I do about 20,000 miles a year in mine - much of it as long runs. I rapid charge at least once a week and slow) charge to 100% about once a week. I rarely run it below 10%, but frequently run it to between 10 and 20%. The only things I try to avoid are rapid-charging beyond about 70% and leaving it stood at 100% for more than about 6 hours. (Less, if I can).
At its 40,000 miles service, I asked the dealer to give me a battery state-of-health report, just out of curiosity. It was 96%.
I think we all get a but hung-up about trying to maximise battery life, but for a lot of us, it's probably going to be the difference between it lasting 250,000 miles or 300,000 miles. I think most of the EVs being built today, will have been scrapped for other reasons before the battery dies.
Maybe not "always", but without doubt, shared platforms (and indeed, complete models) is becoming more common. It costs £billions to develop a decent new car from the ground-up, so unless a manufacturer can be confident or a run of at least a million cars, he's just not going to do it on his own. In Toyota's case, their gaffer didn't like EVs and they were very late to the party, having messed about with hydrogen for a number of years. Having now realised that they're not even in the game, they've gone to Peugeot (with whom they have a good relationship) and asked them to stick Toyota badges on a Partner / Berlingo. That's the cheapest way to get back in the game.
It's interesting to see how the marketing men manipulate people's brand prejudices though! Sometimes, I think the reliability reputation is more down to the dealer network than the product. Here, I think some manufacturers instruct their dealers to do more preventative maintenance when a car comes in, compared to the dealers for the other brand. Or train them better. My feeling, is that it that which results in the perceived better reliability of one brand compared to the other, even though they're selling the same car.
In this case, I'm pretty certain it's not. The reason I say that, is that we convert those vehicles (well, the passenger versions of them) for wheelchair access at work. I have access to the type approval documents for them, so I can see that they share test reports to get their type approvals. I don't think the approval authority would let them do that, if there was the slightest chance that one brand's version might perform the slightest bit differently to the other, in any of the type approval tests.
Iron liners, surely.
Required, or already in place?
