britishtrident
|
| posted on 25/7/08 at 02:49 PM |
|
|
Crazy 2009 Road tax --- here are some figures for Rover models.
Just to show how crazy the whole thing is here are the different Road tax rates for Rover 75 & ZT models Y reg on --- X reg avoids the hike.
Proposed new UK Road Tax Bands for 209 and 2010 correct at 25/7/08
Not good news
Band H 2009 = £175 2010 = £180
2.0CdT Manual
2.0CdTi Manual
Band I
No 75 or ZT models
Band J 2009 = £260 2010 = £270
1.8 Manual
1.8 Turbo Manual
160 1.8 Turbo Manual
2.0CdT Auto
2.0CdTi Auto
Band K 2009 = £300 2010 = £310
1.8 Auto
1.8Turbo Auto
160 V6 Manual --- just sneaks in under the limit !
Band L 2009 = £415 2010 = £430
2.0 V6 Manual & Auto
2.5 V6 Manual & Auto
190 Manual
Band M 2009 = £440 2010 = £455
180 Automatic
I don't have the figures for V8 models but assume band M
|
|
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 25/7/08 at 03:09 PM |
|
|
I can see the figures, but you haven't demonstrated the craziness you refer to.
John
|
|
|
andyharding
|
| posted on 25/7/08 at 03:23 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
I can see the figures, but you haven't demonstrated the craziness you refer to.
John
£455 road tax is more than the car is worth 
Are you a Mac user or a retard?
|
|
|
mcerd1
|
| posted on 25/7/08 at 03:48 PM |
|
|
its really got me angry 
my mk1 focus (1.8 manual hatch) gets C02 based tax
at the moment its £170, but next year that becomes £260 (band J)
its 1 g/km over the threshold, which I wouldn't mind so much if there wasn't the the sudden jump in price between band I & J
if the car was just 12 days older it would be £185 both years
but I'll just wait and see what the do with the older cars, its bound to go up too
at least my scimitar is still free for now.....
[Edited on 25/7/08 by mcerd1]
|
|
|
MkIndy7
|
| posted on 25/7/08 at 03:54 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
I can see the figures, but you haven't demonstrated the craziness you refer to.
John
How's about the fact that a plain Rover 75 1.8 Manual is £270 a year in Road tax!
It is nothing overly luxurious, fast or gas guzzeling.. and also somebody who bought one at Y reg will have had no idea these kind of price hikes were
coming.
Imgine if somebody just told you your mortguage payments were going to double because you bought a house 8 years ago and not 9, how's that
fair!
Selling the car and buying something smaller isin't an option as it will be effectively worthless or loose a massive chunk of what it is worth
as nobody would buy it over 1 a year older.
Somebody ought to take them to a higher court or something over this, imagine being a garage with a forecourt full of Y or newer cars that are about
to take a massive dip in their resale value... Go on Reg Vardy stick it to em and fight it!
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 25/7/08 at 03:54 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyharding
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
I can see the figures, but you haven't demonstrated the craziness you refer to.
John
£455 road tax is more than the car is worth
That's as maybe, but doesn't in itself prove that the road tax is crazy.
It isn't a tax on the value of the cars, therefore comparing the level of tax with the value of the car is bound to throw up some anomalies.
It's my understanding that it is a tax on the amount of CO2 that the car is likely to produce.
I'm not saying I agree with the tax at all, in my opinion they should be taxing air travel, that's where the really gross stuff is
happening.
John
|
|
|
locogeoff
|
| posted on 25/7/08 at 04:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
I'm not saying I agree with the tax at all, in my opinion they should be taxing air travel, that's where the really gross stuff is
happening.
John
I was interested enough to have a quick look, and found the following to my surprise
quote:
A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000
gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).
This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let's call it 500 people
to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That
means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car
gets about 25 miles per gallon, so the 747 is much better than a car carrying one person, and compares favorably even if there are four people in the
car. Not bad when you consider that the 747 is flying at 550 miles per hour (900 km/h)!
I found this! and do not verify the data nor am I willing to defend it, so there 
|
|
|
MkIndy7
|
| posted on 25/7/08 at 04:49 PM |
|
|
Clarkson must have seen similar figures, he once quoted that a 747 uses less fuel flying to the USA than a Mondeo would driving there.
The main argument about air travel is that its emissions are dumped high in the atmosphere where it does more damage instantly.
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 25/7/08 at 04:51 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by locogeoff
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
I'm not saying I agree with the tax at all, in my opinion they should be taxing air travel, that's where the really gross stuff is
happening.
John
I was interested enough to have a quick look, and found the following to my surprise
quote:
A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000
gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).
This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let's call it 500 people
to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That
means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car
gets about 25 miles per gallon, so the 747 is much better than a car carrying one person, and compares favorably even if there are four people in the
car. Not bad when you consider that the 747 is flying at 550 miles per hour (900 km/h)!
I found this! and do not verify the data nor am I willing to defend it, so there
I had a quick look but couldn't find anything about how much fuel these planes use when they take off, but it's bound to be a LOT more
than they use in a level flight cruise situation.
Thing is, though, that the reason most people fly on planes most of the time is for holidays and that mileage is added to the travelling they do for
work, shopping etc. So although on an mpg per person basis a plane might look good (if one forgets about the take off) it does still amount to an
awful lot more fuel being used than if people were able to take their holidays nearer to home (which is what they would do if they started taxing
aviation fuel)
John
[Edited on 25/7/08 by mr henderson]
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 25/7/08 at 08:13 PM |
|
|
It looks very like the new bands were engineered to hit cars that had had been developed to exactly fit the old bands. The goal posts were moved.
For example the old band E was 166-185g/km a lot of 1600 to 1800 cc cars were developed to fit this band with emissions around 182 to 184 g/km.
They now fall into band J is 181 to 200 g/km
Result a rise to £270 per year whacking great £100 more for the treasury.
The real irony the real gas guzzlers mainly big 4x4 only get a £70 rise !!!!!!!
[Edited on 25/7/08 by britishtrident]
|
|
|
Moorron
|
| posted on 25/7/08 at 08:29 PM |
|
|
yeh i think its going to shock people even now when you and i think its been battered about on the news. But sadly not, the guy in my office who
drives like miss daisy in his diesel honda things im stuffed next year in my 4.6 v8 range rover classic pickup. His face when i told him it misses me
was priceless.
The other half buys a car every 5 years when she finishes paying it off, but this time i have convinced her the the 1.4 1999 puma she has now will do.
we plan to spend 2k on it to bring it back up to A1 condition. The huge savings on tax will pay for it.
I got the impression that theres going to be alot of untaxed cars on the roads soon, or very badly maintained ones where the money for new brakes and
like have been used on the tax.
pity.
Sorry about my spelling, im an engineer and only work in numbers.
|
|
|
johnston
|
| posted on 25/7/08 at 08:40 PM |
|
|
Personally I think all its gonna do is mean those on low to average incomes with families etc will find it harder..
and people already on better incomes will shrug it off as either a) they can afford it or b) they have a company car and don't need to worry
about it.
|
|
|
hillbillyracer
|
| posted on 25/7/08 at 08:58 PM |
|
|
So how do I find out what the emissions rating is for my van? I looked on the DVLA site but it only lists new vehicles.
It's a 2001 VW T4 Transporter & is just caught by these regs. Currently it's a touch cheaper than an older over 1600cc but I a fair
idea I'm going to get stung a fair whack.
I dont think it's fair either, it's over 6 years old & I bought it long before these new regs were talked of.
The Rover 75 1.8 is crackers, it's just the kind of motor some needing a largeish car on a budget would buy.
|
|
|
caber
|
| posted on 25/7/08 at 09:00 PM |
|
|
Silver cloud - lots of low mileage doners
Caber
|
|
|
hillbillyracer
|
| posted on 25/7/08 at 09:46 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by caber
Silver cloud - lots of low mileage doners
Caber
But in the case of my van do you really want a transverse 5cyl TDi with 100bhp?
Just thought, mabye the emissions figure is on the logbook?
|
|
|
Chippy
|
| posted on 25/7/08 at 10:11 PM |
|
|
This is a very unfair tax, I would support the tax, IF it was to start from 2009, and be on any car purchased after that date. The way this is being
done is just criminal. How would you feel if the Gov. was to say that they were going to put up the basic rate of income tax, from 20p to 50p and Oh!
we are going to back date it to 2001, Hmmm! hope Gordy dosn't read this thread, may give him another way to kick the working classes in the
crutch. Ray. AKA Mr Angry
To make a car go faster, just add lightness. Colin Chapman - OR - fit a bigger engine. Chippy
|
|
|
