Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

This.

It is a vehicle tax and has as much to do with road maintenance as the VAT on the potatoes you bought at the greengrocers.

The whole argument being put forward is specious as the initial statement is completely wrong.

We're being charged an annual 'VAT' payment on the car(s) we own, we're not being charged to use the roads with this duty, This is why it costs as much to have your car sat on the drive as it does to use it every day as far as THIS duty is concerned.

scooby546

iTrader: (1)

I think this is why it seems unreasonable - if you buy a new car you have already paid VAT (plus showroom tax??) so why are we then charged more VAT ? Even a second hand car has still had the VAT paid on it by someone else when it was new. If the government want to charge VAT on stuff then that's one thing, but to charge it more than once seems underhand to say the least. Is this just another example of taxing the motorist because we're easy targets?

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

I used VAT in inverted commas - it's not in reality VAT but another example of a duty being charged on goods.

The point I was making is that the duty has nothing to do with road use, but vehicle ownership.

scooby546

iTrader: (1)

Ah, right - sorry missed the quotes... I do think tax to actually use them rather than just have them is fairer though... not sure what the tax to have them actually achieves - apart from paying to maintain a vehicle database / register I guess?

tony de wonderful

How about taxing the insurance premium instead? Say add 10%?

Cannon Fodder

iTrader: (100)

And extremely boring to say the least, about as much enjoyment if not less than watching paint dry.

I think you're trying to convince yourself you made the right choice, I drive my Spec C at weekends for pleasure as life is too short to compromise.

scooby546

iTrader: (1)

That's an idea, yes - however people with several cars that they use infrequently could still be subject to higher costs, even if their collective mileage was lower than someone with one car who does a lot of mileage. I guess it depends on how much weight is given to the annual mileage declaration at the time of insurance, with respect to discount.

If for example one guy has 5 cars, and does a total of 5000 miles per year, 1000 miles in each. In theory, they should pay about the same as another guy who has one car and does 5000 miles per year in that.

There may be other administrative overheads etc but the general cost should in my view be the same, because they are using the infrastructure for the same distance and theoretically are placing the same 'load' on it (assuming the cars are similar of course)

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I'd rather pay more road tax and have a bit less MPG and drive something interesting everyday. After all, for me VED works out at £0.73p a day, so hardly worth moaning about...some people pay more for $ky TV, driving a car is alot more useful than satellite TV!!

If I can't afford it, I'll sell up and buy one of those £0 VED 60mpg snore-mobile .

Remember driving is a privilege, not a god given right

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

The problem that I see is that you are talking a fundamental shift in the way vehicles are taxed.

You would move from being taxed on ownership to being taxed on use.

The roads are free to use (with some exceptions: toll roads) and all people have a RIGHT to use them. You require permission to drive a motor vehicle on them but as an individual you have a right.

It's bad enough as it is with people incorrectly associating the VED with paying for the roads (it doesn't any more than any other duty / tax) if you were to add a 'road premium', people's views would simply get more entrenched.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Indeed, point to note is that direct.gov and the DVLA websites refer to it as "Vehicle Tax", which is what it is. It never makes any reference to what the money is use for. Its just a tax to entitle you to use a particular vehicle.

paulbu

Common sense says scrap the road fund license and instead increase the fuel duty for a fairer solution all round. Why should a motorist who does 15k per annum and who pays nothing be allowed to pump more carbon into the atmosphere than the motorist doing 6k per annum and who has to pay £450 ?
It's a nonsense.
A quick word to these diesel drivers with their 'neck snapping torque'. It's a pity that the low revs mean this torque can't be converted into what really makes a car go down a road.... good old BHP.

JonMc

iTrader: (51)

I've been preaching about this for years, it also means that the ******* who run around with no MOT or insurance are at least paying a bit more towards the carnage they leave behind

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Me too, when Labour were waffling and wasting millions of pounds investigating the feasibility of pay-per-mile motoring the simple answer is just to scrap road tax and put it onto fuel instead. That way everyone pays in proportion to what they use....including foreigners. The most polluting pay more (got 19mpg out my Jag last time I took it for a run ), as do the heavy road users (Midland to London communters, reps, hauliers etc).

As for Torque vs BHP. A bone to pick:

BHP is nothing without torque (get a calculator out if you don't believe me). BHP is a multiple of torque and revs. Thats why torqueless bike engines and Hondas make huge BHP...mainly because of their high red line.

What you need is both, high torque from low revs that is maintained all the way to a high rpm, creating a wide powerband; None of this "nothing to 3000rpm" or "4000rpm red-line" rubbish. But you only really get that with big capacity V8/V10/V12s petrol engines. You don't get any of that on both small diesels or 2.0 4-pot petrol engines (turbo'd or not).

That said a big diesel with a good fast shifting gearbox does work well...Take BMWs latest 3.0d with the 8speed transmission, it absolutely flys, 42mpg in a car weighing 1950kg that still does 0-60 in 6 secs and costs just £195 to tax. No lag either (turbos are up and running at about 1000rpm), its hard not to be impressed about what this engine can do. Its just huge a pity its a barge to drive/handle (too heavy ).

spider290

I recently got a 2006 hawkeye WRX and my tax is £253......for 6 months :0

tony de wonderful

I'm not finding performance cars a great proposition in the UK having moved back here. Too many speed cameras, pot holes, traffic jams, crowded roads in general, always raining. That plus the insurance and fuel duty rip off.

They are nice to own but little use. In Oz I could find loads of empty freeways in the middle of nowhere to boot it.

tony de wonderful

Low down torque is good for nipping about in traffic, as you get instant acceleration from the low rpms you are likely to be driving at in normal conditions.

Of course a 4 pot oil burner will rapidly run out of puff and you have to shift up.

BTW hp doesn't make a car move, it's torque.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Sad but true.

Thats why I don't bother with a fast weekend "toy" and would rather go for a interesting(ish) daily driver instead...something that goes well when I need it to go (not laggy), puts the power down in typical UK conditions (wet=AWD) and doesn't rattle my teeth too much (not a STi type UK ). A very difficult criteria to meet these days

Track days excepting there is nowhere in the UK to really use them, if its not potholes or scameras its dawdlers trying eek out 60mpg by doddering along at 40mph everywhere.

I had my scoob as a weekend car for while, I just ended up not using it at all. And it annoyed the **** off me in rush hour traffic (too laggy, too jiggly etc). Thats when I decided to get rid of it.

tony de wonderful

You just described Pete.

Yes AWD is a must as is a lack of lag for a performance car, but given the poor efficiency of a nasp with enough displacement to be exciting you have to go with a turbo now, so you're hit with a bit of lag and lack of low down torque.

The R32 was great in many ways but the poor mpg made me feel guilty driving it. I also got annoyed at the lazy throttle response which either didn't respond or over responded.

The forthcoming R might be a good proposition if you can get 40 mpg?

I'll just stick with my TDI now. It's nice enough inside and will do the job.

paulbu

Honda Civic Type R :-

204 bhp, 145 lbs ft of torque, 0-60 6.5 secs, 60-100 9.7 secs.

Honda Civic 2.2 Diesel

140 bhp, 251 lbs ft of torque, 0-60 8.5 secs, 60-100 20.5 secs


Yeah, that torque really makes the diesel move !

BedHog

My Celtic Tuned 2.2 Diesel Civic is 204bhp and 310 lbs ft of torque.

0-60 7.6 Seconds. Real world fuel consumption is around 50mpg

Forget 0-60 pub figures though, real world driving it is pretty quick....

Oh and Tax is £120/year.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Try 50-70mph time in 3rd gear

BHP is calculated from torque and rpm; If torque = zero, BHP will also be zero. I find it unbelievable people fail to grasp that simple matehmatical equation (And I suffer from dyscalculia too! ).

0-60mph is always going to poo on a diesel with a manual gearbox. Especially on a FWD cars - our Seat Altea with its pathetic 140ps is still spinning its wheels in 3rd gear in a dry road standing start.

paulbu

We all know that BHP is directly proportional to torque and RPM, but as I said in my original posting, a diesel is unable to convert a high low down torque figure into a high BHP and as such will always lag behind in the performance stakes. This applies even to 50-70 times in third gear. I couldn't stomach diesel type perfromance even at £110 road tax.

tony de wonderful

One reason I didn't get the 1.6 bluemotion was I had it at about 50 mph on the motorway and floored it....barely a perceptible acceleration. Not too keen on joining motorways when the only thing you can do is maintain speed or slow. Sure the 140 hp 2.0 TDI isn't impressive but it does respond