RE: Suzuki forced to cut UK Jimny allocation
Discussion
skyrover said:
I would not call 154 g/km terrible by any stretch of the imagination. The 4.7 V8 in my jeep puts out around 400g/km, which is a bit poorer.
But that's if you subscribe to the argument that CO2 is a pollutant, which is debatable.
Personally I am much more concerned about pollution from diesel's than petrols.
That's it , Using a 2.0D Evoque is a terrible comparison , 150hp with 143g is not exactly impressive either , The 1.4T unit Suzuki makes puts out 125g with almost the same power output.But that's if you subscribe to the argument that CO2 is a pollutant, which is debatable.
Personally I am much more concerned about pollution from diesel's than petrols.
Edited by Bagzie88 on Sunday 26th January 13:15
Don't get me wrong I really like the new Jimny, and all this nonsense about them being inferior to Defenders in pure off road terms is just that. But they will still be selling them over here, just not as many as they want. I think Suzuki will be happy to sell as many as they can import, as others have said it means that they won't need to offer discounts.
Import quotas used to limit sales of Japanese cars over here back in the 80s and 90s too, although this was nothing to do with emissions.
Import quotas used to limit sales of Japanese cars over here back in the 80s and 90s too, although this was nothing to do with emissions.
Problem for Suzuki really is they produce the right cars for consumers -- light, robust & simple -- and thus reliable, but not super efficient. The latter even doesn't matter much emissions wise -- as in the real world, not a lot of miles will be done with the typical compact car they make.
Regulations wise it is pretty bad for Suzuki -- not sure which emissions pool they are in though. Here's a pretty neat blog post [1] from a guy that did the maths. Weight is part of the formula and heavier cars have a lower Co2 fine compared to something with same emissions but less weight. Saving weight is still good, but the incentive is reduced by the regulation.
From a PH perspective, all of it sucks pretty badly. It's only going to get better once enough EVs are getting sold. For the time being, especially smaller hot hatches are in danger...
I wish the legislators simply had the balls to do this via (much) increased fuel taxation. People that only look for a-b transport would simply move to more efficient cars and there would be an incentive for driving less.
[1] https://skranz.github.io/r/2020/01/14/eu_cars_co2_...
Regulations wise it is pretty bad for Suzuki -- not sure which emissions pool they are in though. Here's a pretty neat blog post [1] from a guy that did the maths. Weight is part of the formula and heavier cars have a lower Co2 fine compared to something with same emissions but less weight. Saving weight is still good, but the incentive is reduced by the regulation.
From a PH perspective, all of it sucks pretty badly. It's only going to get better once enough EVs are getting sold. For the time being, especially smaller hot hatches are in danger...
I wish the legislators simply had the balls to do this via (much) increased fuel taxation. People that only look for a-b transport would simply move to more efficient cars and there would be an incentive for driving less.
[1] https://skranz.github.io/r/2020/01/14/eu_cars_co2_...
warch said:
Don't get me wrong I really like the new Jimny, and all this nonsense about them being inferior to Defenders in pure off road terms is just that.
Quite.A Jimny has coil sprung live axles front and rear with selectable 4WD with H and L ratios.
It works exactly like a Defender, and just as well.
I used to own a Jimny. I have also owned a couple of (proper) Land Rovers as well as Cherokee and Wrangler Jeeps.
If you need to carry stuff, tow anything or use the motorway, then Jimnys are hopeless.
But if you live on the side of the Pennines like I used to, then a Jimny is brilliant. On the narrow single track roads it's diminutive size was a positive advantage.
They are fantastic things, but only if you have a peculiar set of requirements and in most situations you would be better off with a Duster.
One of the big attractions of the old Jimnys was their value for money, so it is ironic that the new model sells for such a premium.
I have fond memories of mine.
Pat H said:
Quite.
A Jimny has coil sprung live axles front and rear with selectable 4WD with H and L ratios.
It works exactly like a Defender, and just as well.
I used to own a Jimny. I have also owned a couple of (proper) Land Rovers as well as Cherokee and Wrangler Jeeps.
If you need to carry stuff, tow anything or use the motorway, then Jimnys are hopeless.
But if you live on the side of the Pennines like I used to, then a Jimny is brilliant. On the narrow single track roads it's diminutive size was a positive advantage.
They are fantastic things, but only if you have a peculiar set of requirements and in most situations you would be better off with a Duster.
One of the big attractions of the old Jimnys was their value for money, so it is ironic that the new model sells for such a premium.
I have fond memories of mine.
Good little wagons but as you allude they are a bit of a niche within a niche and that makes them very low volume. Without better economy they aren’t going to get any demand outside of their niche. Especially not given their price tag here. A Jimny has coil sprung live axles front and rear with selectable 4WD with H and L ratios.
It works exactly like a Defender, and just as well.
I used to own a Jimny. I have also owned a couple of (proper) Land Rovers as well as Cherokee and Wrangler Jeeps.
If you need to carry stuff, tow anything or use the motorway, then Jimnys are hopeless.
But if you live on the side of the Pennines like I used to, then a Jimny is brilliant. On the narrow single track roads it's diminutive size was a positive advantage.
They are fantastic things, but only if you have a peculiar set of requirements and in most situations you would be better off with a Duster.
One of the big attractions of the old Jimnys was their value for money, so it is ironic that the new model sells for such a premium.
I have fond memories of mine.
It seems a bit obvious that Suzuki have made these for less developed markets which have less stringent regulations and much larger natural demand for smaller than average, simple offroaders.
I imagine the real market for these is Asia rather than affluent, tarmaced Europe. Which must be good news for all the elderly enthusiasts who are going to get posted to Thai care homes by their loving offspring.
They had a fleet of the bloody things at the car hire place I used in St Lucia a couple of years back (previous model). Couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, and automatic to boot. Slow, noisy, bouncy, thirsty, fairly 'orrible thing really, but a harmless enough way of getting round a small island for a couple of weeks. Couldn't imagine owning one in the UK.
lesz42 said:
100 said:
Jimnys - why did they even build them?
why?why do you even post on here? a mate used to take great delight in doing this on a regular basis. great little cars for the people that actually use them for their intended purpose. a gamekeeper i know and several fishing mates all have them and the (relatively) light weight and small size make them very practical on tight tracks around the coast and countryside .
as an aside a good mate works at the local suzuki dealership. what i have learnt since he started there is any cars in the family that don't have a dealer service history will be going there from now on. customer care second to none,mechanics are given proper time for diagnostics and no time pressure on them for the tricky stuff and their hourly rate is lower than a lot of independents i can think of.
DonkeyApple said:
Good little wagons but as you allude they are a bit of a niche within a niche and that makes them very low volume.
Yep. And that's not a bad thing.Jimnys are completely irrelevant to most car buyers, but if you need the motoring equivalent of a mountain goat, then they do the job very well indeed.
They are a Bonsai Land Rover 90. And if people moan about them being too small and too slow, then they have fundamentally missed the point.
Within their niche they are brilliant. Outside their niche they are awful.
Either way, the world would be poorer for their absence.
Pat H said:
DonkeyApple said:
Good little wagons but as you allude they are a bit of a niche within a niche and that makes them very low volume.
Yep. And that's not a bad thing.Jimnys are completely irrelevant to most car buyers, but if you need the motoring equivalent of a mountain goat, then they do the job very well indeed.
They are a Bonsai Land Rover 90. And if people moan about them being too small and too slow, then they have fundamentally missed the point.
Within their niche they are brilliant. Outside their niche they are awful.
Either way, the world would be poorer for their absence.
Kolbenkopp said:
Problem for Suzuki really is they produce the right cars for consumers -- light, robust & simple -- and thus reliable, but not super efficient. The latter even doesn't matter much emissions wise -- as in the real world, not a lot of miles will be done with the typical compact car they make.
Regulations wise it is pretty bad for Suzuki -- not sure which emissions pool they are in though. Here's a pretty neat blog post [1] from a guy that did the maths. Weight is part of the formula and heavier cars have a lower Co2 fine compared to something with same emissions but less weight. Saving weight is still good, but the incentive is reduced by the regulation.
From a PH perspective, all of it sucks pretty badly. It's only going to get better once enough EVs are getting sold. For the time being, especially smaller hot hatches are in danger...
I wish the legislators simply had the balls to do this via (much) increased fuel taxation. People that only look for a-b transport would simply move to more efficient cars and there would be an incentive for driving less.
[1] https://skranz.github.io/r/2020/01/14/eu_cars_co2_...
I'm liking the statistics and analysis on that link - cheers for posting it Regulations wise it is pretty bad for Suzuki -- not sure which emissions pool they are in though. Here's a pretty neat blog post [1] from a guy that did the maths. Weight is part of the formula and heavier cars have a lower Co2 fine compared to something with same emissions but less weight. Saving weight is still good, but the incentive is reduced by the regulation.
From a PH perspective, all of it sucks pretty badly. It's only going to get better once enough EVs are getting sold. For the time being, especially smaller hot hatches are in danger...
I wish the legislators simply had the balls to do this via (much) increased fuel taxation. People that only look for a-b transport would simply move to more efficient cars and there would be an incentive for driving less.
[1] https://skranz.github.io/r/2020/01/14/eu_cars_co2_...
RSTurboPaul said:
I'm liking the statistics and analysis on that link - cheers for posting it
Pleasure! Glad it is of interest. Did not know that the underlying data was recently published by the EU (freely available -- source links in blog post). Wish I paid more attention in stats though. The 2018 Greta Thunberg award for vehicular climate effect .... goes to .... an Italian registered Phantom VIII with a massive 548g Co2
. Quite the achievement, e.g. two and a half more what a BMW M4 manages...Kolbenkopp said:
Problem for Suzuki really is they produce the right cars for consumers -- light, robust & simple -- and thus reliable, but not super efficient. The latter even doesn't matter much emissions wise -- as in the real world, not a lot of miles will be done with the typical compact car they make.
Regulations wise it is pretty bad for Suzuki -- not sure which emissions pool they are in though. Here's a pretty neat blog post [1] from a guy that did the maths. Weight is part of the formula and heavier cars have a lower Co2 fine compared to something with same emissions but less weight. Saving weight is still good, but the incentive is reduced by the regulation.
From a PH perspective, all of it sucks pretty badly. It's only going to get better once enough EVs are getting sold. For the time being, especially smaller hot hatches are in danger...
I wish the legislators simply had the balls to do this via (much) increased fuel taxation. People that only look for a-b transport would simply move to more efficient cars and there would be an incentive for driving less.
[1] https://skranz.github.io/r/2020/01/14/eu_cars_co2_...
Logically you are absolutely right that the solution would be to add much more tax to fuel so that consumers naturally opted for the most frugal vehicles. Regulations wise it is pretty bad for Suzuki -- not sure which emissions pool they are in though. Here's a pretty neat blog post [1] from a guy that did the maths. Weight is part of the formula and heavier cars have a lower Co2 fine compared to something with same emissions but less weight. Saving weight is still good, but the incentive is reduced by the regulation.
From a PH perspective, all of it sucks pretty badly. It's only going to get better once enough EVs are getting sold. For the time being, especially smaller hot hatches are in danger...
I wish the legislators simply had the balls to do this via (much) increased fuel taxation. People that only look for a-b transport would simply move to more efficient cars and there would be an incentive for driving less.
[1] https://skranz.github.io/r/2020/01/14/eu_cars_co2_...
However the argument is very fair that this would hit the mobility of the lower incomes far too harshly and be very detrimental to the wider economy.
But there is nothing to stop an intelligent solution such as tiered pricing so that your typical income earner with a prudent vehicle can fill up at the base level of taxation but for others filling their much larger tank hits a secondary taxation level. Such people would very quickly get bored of having to stop for fuel twice as often as they could only half fill their car to avoid the additional tax and naturally select more frugal vehicles at the next change point. The tax would essentially be purely voluntary but be a strong driver of change.
Likewise with domestic power usage, it would be easy to set regional base usage so that the average worker paid no additional tax but heavy consumers would be forced to be much more efficient.
Um - why wouldn’t you fill your tank to the lower tax amount, pay, then move to the next pump and fill again? Or even at the same pump. Would add maybe 60 seconds or so...
For the second - Indonesia does this. If you have a low capacity connection (4.5 kW ISTR) you pay less. So enough for lights, some appliances etc but if you want aircon, and switch a kettle on, your fuses trip.
For the second - Indonesia does this. If you have a low capacity connection (4.5 kW ISTR) you pay less. So enough for lights, some appliances etc but if you want aircon, and switch a kettle on, your fuses trip.
Edited by wisbech on Tuesday 28th January 03:34
wisbech said:
Don Roque said:
What a shame, a handy little 4x4 for people that might have actually used it for more than just double parking and cracking pavements outside schools. It's an important car for Suzuki too, being effectively their signature model.
Apparently they may turn it commercial and can then sell to hill farmers etc who need itRear windows may just be covered in vinyl to block them out, so that's easy enough to remove.
We were hoping to get one later this year and I’d be prepared to do that.
Edited by BeastieBoy73 on Tuesday 28th January 08:42
RSTurboPaul said:
Kolbenkopp said:
Problem for Suzuki really is they produce the right cars for consumers -- light, robust & simple -- and thus reliable, but not super efficient. The latter even doesn't matter much emissions wise -- as in the real world, not a lot of miles will be done with the typical compact car they make.
Regulations wise it is pretty bad for Suzuki -- not sure which emissions pool they are in though. Here's a pretty neat blog post [1] from a guy that did the maths. Weight is part of the formula and heavier cars have a lower Co2 fine compared to something with same emissions but less weight. Saving weight is still good, but the incentive is reduced by the regulation.
From a PH perspective, all of it sucks pretty badly. It's only going to get better once enough EVs are getting sold. For the time being, especially smaller hot hatches are in danger...
I wish the legislators simply had the balls to do this via (much) increased fuel taxation. People that only look for a-b transport would simply move to more efficient cars and there would be an incentive for driving less.
[1] https://skranz.github.io/r/2020/01/14/eu_cars_co2_...
I'm liking the statistics and analysis on that link - cheers for posting it Regulations wise it is pretty bad for Suzuki -- not sure which emissions pool they are in though. Here's a pretty neat blog post [1] from a guy that did the maths. Weight is part of the formula and heavier cars have a lower Co2 fine compared to something with same emissions but less weight. Saving weight is still good, but the incentive is reduced by the regulation.
From a PH perspective, all of it sucks pretty badly. It's only going to get better once enough EVs are getting sold. For the time being, especially smaller hot hatches are in danger...
I wish the legislators simply had the balls to do this via (much) increased fuel taxation. People that only look for a-b transport would simply move to more efficient cars and there would be an incentive for driving less.
[1] https://skranz.github.io/r/2020/01/14/eu_cars_co2_...
Will be interesting to see if they bring it in as a commercial with two seats, you'd think most people that buy them would rarely use the second row of seats and find more use for a bigger boot anyway.
wisbech said:
Um - why wouldn’t you fill your tank to the lower tax amount, pay, then move to the next pump and fill again? Or even at the same pump. Would add maybe 60 seconds or so...
For the second - Indonesia does this. If you have a low capacity connection (4.5 kW ISTR) you pay less. So enough for lights, some appliances etc but if you want aircon, and switch a kettle on, your fuses trip.
On paper it would add 60 seconds, in reality it would lead to a month in hospital. For the second - Indonesia does this. If you have a low capacity connection (4.5 kW ISTR) you pay less. So enough for lights, some appliances etc but if you want aircon, and switch a kettle on, your fuses trip.
Edited by wisbech on Tuesday 28th January 03:34
It would be easy enough to prevent double pump usage but the key lies in just making it less convenient. Just having to use two pumps and pay two bills and have two other drivers waiting behind you would be enough to stimulate the bulk of consumers to change their spending habits.
We can tier utility usage even easier than Indonesia. Our utilities are the most efficient tax collection mechanisms within the most efficient country at collecting taxation. Its probably the most efficient collection mechanism of any government on the planet. Andnit holds vast amounts of personal and domestic data. All you would need to do is set a base consumption level where taxation remains as it is and above that level levy a much higher tax. That’s it. It’s just a flick of a switch on the billing system that is already billing at different rates.
As more households add EVs then this additional electricity usage will need to be taxed at the same time as affluent households binge more and more in consumer tech that needs to be taxed and tax needs to be used to incentivise gas central heating to convert to electric.
And the only way to get consumers to switch from massive, high consumption cars to smaller more frugal vehicles is through taxation or in this case inconvenience caused by optional taxation.
It’s a pretty fair argument to say that there is almost no domestic journey that cannot be fulfilled by a 1L Focus sized vehicle. It’s our choice to cough up for the luxury of bigger things that take £100 of fuel at a sitting. If you could only buy £30 of fuel at each stop without paying an additional £1/litre on the rest very many of us would gently opt to move away from such inconvenient cars and over to something better.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff