Nissan X-Trails and the Temporary Spare Tyre saga - BINGO - or so I think!!!!

[BernardinTring]

I have previously posted under this General Section what I felt to be the rather ludicrous situation of Nissan producing a car aimed as a tow vehicle but equipping it with a temporary spare - not fit for towing. (Ludicrous situation or is it me?)

Arising from representations I made to Nissan after I purchased a full size spare, they agreed to refund me the sum of £334.20 being the cost, so they calculated, of the cost of the unsuitable spare temporary.

The price for a full size steel rim and tyre being 80p more at £335.00 or an Alloy full size at £558.00.

Whilst I personally am pleased with this outcome, I also raised the 'principle' with the Caravan Club and asked that they make representations to Mr Nissan as they seemed in close colaboration in various promotions and sponsorship dealings..

Today I have received the following response from Nissan via the Clubs Technical Department:-

The Club have now received a reply from Nissan, who have stated;

As a result of all the spare wheel feedback the following will be done:
- Sent a communication out to the network of dealers about the spare wheel
- Reduced the price of a full size spare by 50%

Hope the above may be of some assistance to fellow X-Trail owners who may feel safer and more reassured with a full size tyre.

Bernard

 

[emmerson]

Little guy 1, big corporation 0. Well done Bernard.

 

[Parksy]

Nice one Bernard, by not giving up you have made a difference and corrected what was truly a ludicrous situation

 

[otherclive]

Perhaps the Caravan Club might also make represenations to other manufacturers such as Volvo, Ford, LR and all who market cars for towing but only supply space savers, or worse sealant kits. At least Volvo doesnt ban towing on a space saver, but as the one supplied with the MY2010 XC70 is just under 2 inches less in diameter than the road wheels Im fearing the day I may have to use it with or without the caravan in tow. And yes it is the correct one for the car as nothing larger will fit in the wheel well. Perhaps we will see the annual tow tests define more clearly than they have done so far what is available for the car and most importantly what the makers policy is for towing post-puncture. On the other hand their might be precious few cars to test!
The Sunday Times Driving had a big section on how our costs for RAC/AA etc will rise on account of the large increase in call outs because of space savers and mobilty sealant kits that cannot be used to either get you to the end of your journey, or because the tyre is so damaged the sealant does not work. Howver given the trend within the EU to ban 'unapproved non-OEM' changes to the car once delivered I feel that many cars will still be specified without a full size spare wheel as the extra weight may just push the car into a higher tax or emisions bracket that Fleet Managers will want to avoid. So many cars then coming onto the Used market still may not give the buyer the option to upgrade to a full size spare unless they want to carry it around in the load space. Such is progress.

 

[Surfer]

Perhaps if all breakdown companies added an annual levy of £20 for vehicles with no proper spare, there would be a huge outcry by motorists forcing manufacturers to rethink the no spare wheel or space saver scenario.
Wishful thinking I guess?

 

[Gafferbill]

Very well done Bernard.....a result!

Nissan seem to be prone to dropping clangers over spare wheels.
My 2001 Terrano was supplied new with a full size spare wheel so no problems with towing capabilities.
The only trouble is it is a steel wheel which is twice as heavy as the alloys supplied on the other wheels.
It lives on the back door and requires a lot of effort to get it back in place when you remove it.
Many people could not do this.
When the Terrano was newer a replacement alloy was prohibitively expensive and now a pristine second hand one is rarer than hens teeth!

 

[Gafferbill]

When the Terrano was newer a replacement alloy was prohibitively expensive and now a pristine second hand one is rarer than hens teeth!

It seems somewhere out there you can find hens with teeth......I have just taken delivery of a pristine never used alloy for my Terrano from an ebay supplier at a more than reasonable price.

 

[RogerL]

There is an easier way to influence car manufacturers - simply don't include any vehicle on your shortlist without a full-size spare wheel, or at least the option as an extra including space to store it.
That's how I do it when buying a new car - if it's an extra cost option I simply add that to my price comparison.
Vote with your wallets, it works every time.

 

[otherclive]

But if you are limited by the choice of cars available none of which even have provision for a full size spare you have to think a bit wider on whether the miles towing should dominate your choice of overall motoring. My car comes with a space saver and I carry a Continental Mobilty kit which would be my first choice use in the event of a puncture as it gives the range to finish a journey, despite Continental's stated limit which just covers them legally. I've had sealant in my bike tyres sometimes with up to 4 punctures in and they go on for months and their pressure is at 65psi. They get changed when worn out. Its all a matter of choice and balancing the options it I admit it would really be nice to be given the choice of a full size wheel or space saver that can do 500 miles at 50 mph.

 

[TheCoachman]

The general car buying public should be voicing their opinions more on this issue.
When we purchased our Rover 75 10 years ago within hours I had a packaging staple sticking into the rear sidewall (a long story)
As the tyre could not be repaired I had to run with a different tyre brand on one corner (another long story) Meantime my wife refused point blank to drive our new 21k car with a space saver.
Both my 75's now have proper alloys as will all future cars purchased. (Sales managers beware)

As for those infernal aerosols they should be banned completely on safety grounds. Imagine purchasing an upmarket car secondhand which has these aerosols. You would not know if a tyre had been "treated" and the aerosol replaced, then you are thundering down the motorway with your family on board.
Need I say more.

 

[ProfJohnL]

As we all know cars are quite costly to own and run. Governments are taxing less efficient vehicles more, so the manufacturers are working to bring down the cost of ownership by reducing carbon emissions.

Some fairly clever solutions are being developed, but one of the main CO2 factors is the weight of the vehicle. So every kilogram saved (e.g. spacesaver wheels) will reduce the vehicles CO2 footprint.

One of the problems with the current system of taxation classes, is just that 'classes' defined by thresholds of CO2 emissions. If a manufacturer is just above one of the thresholds they will do what they can to bring it down just a bit, and weight reduction is common strategy.

It may come as quite a shock to caravanners, but we are a minority in the road users statistics, and our particular needs or wants are have a low importance to most car manufacturers. So expecting manufactures to bow to our demands for full size spares is unlikely to find favour.

Whose to blame? Well we are, because we elect our governments and we are demanding more efficient cars.

 

[Surfer]

Whose to blame? Well we are, because we elect our governments and we are demanding more efficient cars.

Unfortunately we do not vote in the people who make these silly rules as the rules come from the EU. More than likely the person who decided on the emmissions criteria was elected in another country! Another issue is the DPF in diesel cars which adds on cost to the motorist!

 

[BernardinTring]

Appears someone is listening and perhaps caravanners and their needs are not the to be ignored minority as suggested.
At the recent Milton Keynes Caravan show in the Middleton Hall. both Kia and Hyundi were represented displaying their new models of both the Sorento and Santa Fe side by side. Useful initself for anyone thinking of buying and incidently both had some very nice features..
The point of this post however is that BOTH had full size spare wheels fitted as standard and seven seats!!
Makes you think if Japan is losing its grip.

Bernard

 

[Surfer]

Never understood the need for 7 seats in a 4 x 4. Surely it should be an option?

 

[JonnyG]

Whose to blame? Well we are, because we elect our governments and we are demanding more efficient cars.

Unfortunately we do not vote in the people who make these silly rules as the rules come from the EU. More than likely the person who decided on the emmissions criteria was elected in another country! Another issue is the DPF in diesel cars which adds on cost to the motorist!

best keep up surfer, modern diesels now have add blu too, so theres another added cost to diesel owners in the coming years.best option take the dam dpf off its not needed to pass an mot.

 

[otherclive]

Adblue can be bought online at 77p per litre and given a typical car adblue tank will be 20-30 litres and lasts around 25000km its hardly going to break the bank. Given diesels inherently produce NOX the Selective Catalytic Reducer is probably the best means of dealing with it. The DPF is there to remove the very fine particulates that again diesels produce no matter how advanced they are. In fact modern diesels produce proportionately more fine particulates than the smokey joes of yesteryear. I have no qualms regarding reduced emissions if it means children and others are better protected. After all we could go back to towing with a petrol engine car which served us well for so long. Just like cats when they first came out DPFs are now getting cheaper as after market suppliers enter the fray.
Its likely that before too long MoT will check fine particle emissions and spot when a DPF has been rigged together with the regeneration software too. Then be prepared to reinstate it at what cost?

 

[Gybe]

The stop start feature that more cars are being fitted with requires a different battery. Stop/Start technology batteries are £80 - £100 more than a standard battery. I've no idea on their life span, but it's yet another added cost of your the person replacing it.

 

[JonnyG]

Adblue can be bought online at 77p per litre and given a typical car adblue tank will be 20-30 litres and lasts around 25000km its hardly going to break the bank. Given diesels inherently produce NOX the Selective Catalytic Reducer is probably the best means of dealing with it. The DPF is there to remove the very fine particulates that again diesels produce no matter how advanced they are. In fact modern diesels produce proportionately more fine particulates than the smokey joes of yesteryear. I have no qualms regarding reduced emissions if it means children and others are better protected. After all we could go back to towing with a petrol engine car which served us well for so long. Just like cats when they first came out DPFs are now getting cheaper as after market suppliers enter the fray.
Its likely that before too long MoT will check fine particle emissions and spot when a DPF has been rigged together with the regeneration software too. Then be prepared to reinstate it at what cost?

There are no plans as yet in the pipeline to make dpfs part of the MOT,so in any event not likely to happen for atleast 5 plus years,if it ever did come into effec.t after all cats [another peice of emmision kit] have been around on diesels since the early 90s and no tests were ever implemented for them where the mot of diesels are concerned.so "what cost" i would say no cost for the foreseeable future..dpfs actually effect effiecency,so they remove smallar particles but produce more CO than if they werent fitted!
"PETROL VEHICLES" COUGH COUGH COUGH.. produce smallar and therefore more harmful particles.abit also fewer,these cannot be coughed up and therefore lodge deep in ones lungs,diesel particles can be counghed up!!!!!!! so on that score i would be more concerned with petrol vehicle particles than i am with modernish diesel vehicles..
I think i will keep to de catting and removing of DPFs on my vehicles,if i was enviromental i would say "so producing less CO and using less fossil fuels too"...but each to their own enviromental views...
PS. as for adblue being cheap,well clive when mercedes and vw to name two advertise its their job to top up and you can top up only in an emergency,then for normal joe bloggs it would be as cheap as you think as it will take some time for the info to sink in..

 

[Surfer]

Our 2005 Jeep doesn't have a DPF fitted so I guess we are lucky. As stated they are fitted to reduce pollution, but the general advice is if your diesel starts spluttering, take it for a rev of about 10 miles on a motorway to burn off the residue??? Seems counter productive.

 

[otherclive]

Adblue can be bought online at 77p per litre and given a typical car adblue tank will be 20-30 litres and lasts around 25000km its hardly going to break the bank. Given diesels inherently produce NOX the Selective Catalytic Reducer is probably the best means of dealing with it. The DPF is there to remove the very fine particulates that again diesels produce no matter how advanced they are. In fact modern diesels produce proportionately more fine particulates than the smokey joes of yesteryear. I have no qualms regarding reduced emissions if it means children and others are better protected. After all we could go back to towing with a petrol engine car which served us well for so long. Just like cats when they first came out DPFs are now getting cheaper as after market suppliers enter the fray.
Its likely that before too long MoT will check fine particle emissions and spot when a DPF has been rigged together with the regeneration software too. Then be prepared to reinstate it at what cost?

There are no plans as yet in the pipeline to make dpfs part of the MOT,so in any event not likely to happen for atleast 5 plus years,if it ever did come into effec.t after all cats [another peice of emmision kit] have been around on diesels since the early 90s and no tests were ever implemented for them where the mot of diesels are concerned.so "what cost" i would say no cost for the foreseeable future..dpfs actually effect effiecency,so they remove smallar particles but produce more CO than if they werent fitted!
"PETROL VEHICLES" COUGH COUGH COUGH.. produce smallar and therefore more harmful particles.abit also fewer,these cannot be coughed up and therefore lodge deep in ones lungs,diesel particles can be counghed up!!!!!!! so on that score i would be more concerned with petrol vehicle particles than i am with modernish diesel vehicles..
I think i will keep to de catting and removing of DPFs on my vehicles,if i was enviromental i would say "so producing less CO and using less fossil fuels too"...but each to their own enviromental views...
PS. as for adblue being cheap,well clive when mercedes and vw to name two advertise its their job to top up and you can top up only in an emergency,then for normal joe bloggs it would be as cheap as you think as it will take some time for the info to sink in..

I think that you will find that catalytic convertors are tested otherwise your car will fail the MoT on CO and Nox viz
A catalytic converter (colloquially, "cat" or "catcon") is a vehicle emissions control device which converts toxic byproducts of combustion in the exhaust of an internal combustion engine to less toxic substances by way of catalysed chemical reactions. The specific reactions vary with the type of catalyst installed. Most present-day vehicles that run on gasoline are fitted with a "three way" converter, so named because it converts the three main pollutants in automobile exhaust. The 3 main pollutants are carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen. The first 2 are converted to 2 new molecules. This happens through an oxidizing reaction which converts "carbon monoxide (CO) and unburned hydrocarbons (HC)" to "CO2 and water vapor". The last pollutant is converted to 3 new molecules. This happens through a reduction reaction which converts "oxides of nitrogen (NOx)" to "CO2, nitrogen (N2) and water (H2O)".[1]"

As for petrol engines producing more fine particulate than diesels, I think you are mistaken on that one too. The effects on health of particles lower than PM 2.5 have been studied in sevarl papers anda US study in 1989-91 looked at 4 million infants and drew some pretty startling conclusions re the effect of air quality particularly particle size. It concluded as have other more recent studies that there is no known safe level below which a hazard to health may exist. But it diid identify a level above which statistically significant health effects were measured. In fact in this one study many infants were exposed ( through thier normal life routines) to radiation levels well below the annual threshold, yet we worry about radiation.But were exposed ( through thier normal life routine) to fine particle ingestion well above the levels known to adversley affect health. The levels are incredibly small around 10 micrograms per year. You cannot see that coming out of an exhaust. Of course not all fine particles are engine derived many come from wear and tear on tyres, brakes, roads etc and the general performance of an economy too. But where a major source of localised particles can be reduced such as in cities it surely makes sense to tackle the emitters.

 

[JonnyG]

sorry clive did not read your responce properly as it was apperent immediately that you are mistaken.... diesels DO NOT NEED CATS FITTED TO PASS AN MOT. never have needed them..
On the otherhand petrols do, the emmision test for diesels is a smoke test and even a well set up peugoet 205d from 1986 could pass the emmision test. no doubt a quick search of the web will confirm what i state.

http://webpages.charter.net/lmarz/emissions.html. Dont know if the link works but

As for the particle issue? i assume the Yanks did tests on petrol vehicles? and indeed as it was in the last century anyway i stand by what i stated.. diesels produce more particles than petrol engines but petrol engines particles which are smallar will fall into the lower parts of the lungs and cannot be coughed out. diesel paricles are larger will not fall as deep into the lungs and can be coughed up.......apparently the deeper thingg go in ones lungs the worse it could be..
I note only today reports that ashma is apparently going down apparently ALL due to banning smoking in public places.!cough cough

 

[otherclive]

I should be saying sorry as I thought your comemnt re cats referred to ICE engines and of course the cat is tested on an MOT for these, albeit indirectly by emission measurements. Yes the US data would have included petrol vehicles but it was more concerned with the effects of particle size on infant health, not pers se the source of the particles. So the mix of vehicles in the environment wasnt relvant as other factors would have also contributed to the particle size distribution. It was an urban environmental trial that was the one that got people thinking about particles in general and their impact on health. Subsequent studies around the world have looked at sources and how to reduce/control them.

 

[Surfer]

I noticed that this thread got a mention in the latest PC Magazine.