Peugeot electric tailor-made rent

[phil59]

https://www.peugeot.fr/offres/le-loyer-sur-mesure.html?gclsrc=ds&gclsrc=ds

An electric 208 at €150 per month, with 500 km per month, and 7cts per additional km.

A priori, from what I understand, it is billed monthly, that is to say that you do not have 6000 km/year, which changes everything, after around 7500€ of contribution.

But a priori, if like many, because 1000 km per month, 500 km more, gives you 35€ per month, all for 12 km/year.

Over 36 months, with your contribution of €7500, that's a small €400/month. ((7500/36)+150+35)

If you take a Tesla Y, with the same 7500€ contribution, for 15 km/year, 000 months it's 36€/month....

I tried the Y model a few days ago, huge trunk, nothing to do with a 208 ....

https://www.tesla.com/fr_fr/modely/design#overview

rent teslay.JPG (57.3 KiB) Viewed 1584 times

Edit to add the tesla link and the screenshot....

[Janic]

[Remundo]

welcome to the wonderful world of the electric vehicle...

whereas it is much more ecological to extend an old thermal than to scrap it and replace it with a lithium tank.

And yes, but it doesn't bring in VAT and it's not beneficial from the media.

[Janic]

remondo

And yes, but it doesn't bring in VAT and it's not beneficial from the media.

eh yes! But there are big bounties to ensnare gullible and misinformed individuals, again!
EVs should only be dedicated to city traffic and therefore light and underpowered to drive at 50 or even less, and only when we have re-imported the factories and boreholes on our soil, to see the real production of pollutants. Because it's too easy to pretend to be paragons of virtue when the maximum pollution is done, for us, in these developing countries, which we then criticize for their pollution.

[sicetaitsimple]

remondo

and only when we have re-imported (the factories) and drilling on our soil,

You're talking about oil drilling, I imagine, since you defend the thermal vehicle? It's going to be complicated... French resources are well known, very limited and not far from being exhausted.
On the other hand, it seems (to be confirmed by exploration) that there is a significant potential for shale gas, particularly in the South East. What do you think? It would prevent "the maximum pollution is done, for us, in these developing countries". Here we go, are you in favor?

[Christophe]

whereas it is much more ecological to extend an old thermal than to scrap it and replace it with a lithium tank.

Right, that's why I just found a replacement for my 280 km old SAAB...

Oh damn the replacement already has 350 km... well, some who take good care of it manage to pull 650 to 700 km...

Given what I ride, I therefore have at least 20 years of potential lifespan... In short, I have just anticipated the ban on thermals in 2035!

I'll let you guess which engine I'm talking about...

(Macro you have no right to answer...)

[phil59]

Remundo and Janic, here it's not for or against the VE.

[Janic]

29/04/23, 16:26
phil

Remundo and Janic, here it's not for or against the VE.

it's just! But how and why sing the praises of a technological aberration in terms of ecological viability which claims to be more virtuous than the current thermal power, but which is only a political decision and not an economic one, just to justify polluting nuclear power.
It's like IZY wanting to sing the praises of mRNAs with great fanfare from fakenews.

[sicetaitsimple]

just to justify polluting nuclear power.

And our Janic who can't get out of his hole...
The VE, is it just Franco-French?
And the French thermal vehicle, is it powered by fossils produced in France?

[Janic]

simpleton

The VE, is it just Franco-French?
And the French thermal vehicle, is it powered by fossils produced in France?

and the other XXXXXX who comes out with this kind of usual nonsense.
The EV is an old concept, not from the XNUMXst century. therefore not FrancoFrench like many products used every day. As for the thermal, it is not justified any more than the EV, poor performance, polluting too and where trying to replace a blind in one eye with a blind in the other, does not justify either one or the other.
The mistake is to want to replace a visually impaired person with another as badly off in terms of pollution and impact on the environment, which concerns not only the user countries, but must include those of the producing countries not counted in the claims. to be non-polluting in CO2 and particles!

Moderate by Remundo