Volkswagen emissions scandal

[puntofan01]

You do realise that CO2 emissions and fuel economy are directly linked right?

Oh wait :chin:

They are, but I'm sure a lot of people would be more convinced if the official mpg was obtained by measuring actual fuel consumption. Especially given the fact that cars that do so wonderfully well in the emissions test aren't especially economical in the real world.

 

[JimbbobW1977]

With regards to road tax, it should be based on engine size, not emissions. This would be a far fairer system than the current 1, where needlessly large engined cars' tax is based on an emissions reading which is unachievable in real life. Ideally, there should be no tax discount for diesels, hybrids, or electric cars, plus there should be an equivalency formula for turbocharged petrol engined cars.

With regards to ALL car emissions, the EU needs to create a more realistic test to measure the emissions from all cars, then use this to work out how unachievable in the real world their current, ridiculous targets are, and then decide on more realistic emissions targets. I completely agree that all emissions need to constantly be reduced, but the current regs are too unrealistic and as such, far to open to abuse by manufacturers.

Basing it on engine size makes no sense at all - my old 1.3 Fiesta had 59 bhp put out 173 co2 took over 13 seconds to 60 and lucky to get over 40mpg.

My current car a 2.0 diesel has 163bhp sixty in 8 seconds 129 co2 and easily does 50mpg.

So on your basis the smaller engine would be a lower tax??

 

[puntofan01]

Basing it on engine size makes no sense at all - my old 1.3 Fiesta had 59 bhp put out 173 co2 took over 13 seconds to 60 and lucky to get over 40mpg.

My current car a 2.0 diesel has 163bhp sixty in 8 seconds 129 co2 and easily does 50mpg.

So on your basis the smaller engine would be a lower tax??

Simple logic really: the smaller the engine, in theory, the smaller the car it's powering. Therefore, the less road space you need, hence why you should pay less tax. You've also just pointed out another part of my reasoning: some people can only afford an older car, so why should they be penalised by paying excessive road tax purely because it produces more emissions than its more modern equivalent?

 

[StevenRB45]

Hmm as I've argued before, flat rate is better, no incentive for manufacturers to lie outrageously and your tax paid is already directly related to how much fuel you use due to the joy of fuel duty.

 

[306maxi]

Simple logic really: the smaller the engine, in theory, the smaller the car it's powering. Therefore, the less road space you need, hence why you should pay less tax. You've also just pointed out another part of my reasoning: some people can only afford an older car, so why should they be penalised by paying excessive road tax purely because it produces more emissions than its more modern equivalent?

Because you tax based on how much fuel you burn, relatively simple concept.

 

[306maxi]

Hmm as I've argued before, flat rate is better, no incentive for manufacturers to lie outrageously and your tax paid is already directly related to how much fuel you use due to the joy of fuel duty.

But then people will still buy based on the quoted figures and be more out of pocket than before. The current system isn't perfect, but it works.

 

[pooroldcodger]

I think we have to decide whether we want socially "fair" taxation (meaning an old, polluting car has the same tax as a newer, cleaner car) or we realise that cleaner air is of benefit to all of us. Especially for those of us with chest complaints.
The problem with "real world" testing is repeatability. Lab conditions can be repeated time after time but on road conditions can't be.

 

[dave]

I think we have to decide whether we want socially "fair" taxation (meaning an old, polluting car has the same tax as a newer, cleaner car) or we realise that cleaner air is of benefit to all of us. Especially for those of us with chest complaints.

we don't get cash back for producing less waste than the man next door or for taking a shower but man next door has a bath, this is why the taxation on cars isnt fair, man next door may have a cleaner car but also has a bonfire every week burning plastics and rubber......

 

[StevenRB45]

But then people will still buy based on the quoted figures and be more out of pocket than before. The current system isn't perfect, but it works.

I don't think it works and recent events have borne this out. CO2 is directly related to fuel consumption if a car can't reach the claimed mpg it can't reach the claimed CO2. I wonder how many true sub 100 g/km cars there are, I suspect the ranks wouldn't fill a car transporter. Recent news reports do rather suggest the new system has done nothing but encourage cars specifically designed to pass tests that are little cleaner once out in the real world. Then you have the question of what is more polluting a super clean new car that does 20k a year or a high days and holidays old smoker?

All cars travel on the same roads, some take up more or less space, but if you have a big car you're already taxed more heavily at point of sale (Can't escape the VAT man) and will pay more tax due to heavier fuel usage and duty on it.

 

[pooroldcodger]

Maybe all that smoke is why he needs a bath?!

 

[puntofan01]

Because you tax based on how much fuel you burn, relatively simple concept.

As StevenRB45 pointed out, we all pay fuel duty. Therefore, the more miles you drive/the thirstier your car, the more fuel you buy; the more fuel duty you pay. Simple, and fair.

 

[puntofan01]

But then people will still buy based on the quoted figures and be more out of pocket than before. The current system isn't perfect, but it works.

Hence my original comment saying that someone needs to devise a more accurate economy test.

 

[puntofan01]

I think we have to decide whether we want socially "fair" taxation (meaning an old, polluting car has the same tax as a newer, cleaner car) or we realise that cleaner air is of benefit to all of us. Especially for those of us with chest complaints.
The problem with "real world" testing is repeatability. Lab conditions can be repeated time after time but on road conditions can't be.

With regards to air pollution, don't forget that we're talking about relatively modern, catalytic converter equipped cars here, not carburettored, leaded fuelled petrols or 1980s soot belching diesels. Whilst a car designed in the late 90s won't be as clean as a current model, they won't be as actively toxic as older cars. And pollutant levels haven't been forgotten, the EU could work with manufacturers to gradually improve emissions rather than setting unrealistic targets.

With regards to real world testing, that is a fair point, but if we are to be stuck with lab testing, they should at least make it more relevant.

 

[PuntoHowTo]

I have no idea why you are wittering on about CO2 engine size and fuel economy, as of 2017 they are introducing a new car tax system which will make almost all cars £140 a year to tax unless they are zero polluting (free to tax) or cost more than £40,000 as they have an additional £310 a year to pay on top of the £140, for the first 5 years.

Basically this new already announced system is being introduced and makes all the arguments above pointless.

All that CO2 emissions will be used to calculate is a first year car tax rate up to £2000 for the most polluting.

 

[puntofan01]

I have no idea why you are wittering on about CO2 engine size and fuel economy, as of 2017 they are introducing a new car tax system which will make almost all cars £140 a year to tax unless they are zero polluting (free to tax) or cost more than £40,000 as they have an additional £310 a year to pay on top of the £140, for the first 5 years.

Basically this new already announced system is being introduced and makes all the arguments above pointless.

All that CO2 emissions will be used to calculate is a first year car tax rate up to £2000 for the most polluting.

Hmmm, sounds even more ridiculously unfair, plus completely illogical. Typical tory policy!

 

[StevenRB45]

Basically this new already announced system is being introduced and makes all the arguments above pointless.

 

[PuntoHowTo]

Hmmm, sounds even more ridiculously unfair, plus completely illogical.

Why?

Obviously you're an expert on car tax (despite not knowing this was coming in) and you've given it a whole 3 minutes thought I'm sure your answer will be a gem

 

[puntofan01]

Why?

Going by what you say, any huge, gas guzzling, road hogging car over 5 years old wouldn't be any more expensive to tax than a Fiat Panda?

 

[dave]

so my croma tax will go down from £265.00 to £140?

 

[PuntoHowTo]

Going by what you say, any huge, gas guzzling, road hogging car over 5 years old wouldn't be any more expensive to tax than a Fiat Panda?

Yep.... And ?

It isn't the purpose of road tax to penalise someone for having a gas guzzling car, you see those who drive big gas guzzling cars also have to pay a huge amount in fuel duty.

A big car doing 20mpg versus a little car doing 60mpg is paying 3 times as much fuel duty.

But when it comes to the amount of space used on the road a little car needs the same gap in front and behind as a big car.

The only reason we moved to a CO2 based system was to meet CO2 emissions targets, times have changed and this is no longer a priority for governments.