emissions and tax

[bones96]

how does your car qualify for the lower band i had my car not today and it came back with no emissions at all lol not bad for a 97 legacy that was the only bit i was worried about

[pogweasel]

It's only 2001- onwards cars that qualify. And then it's based on the the 'as-built' figure.... If you want 'cheap tax', best get that dirty polluting old car traded in for £1000 off a new Fiat Panda or similarly green car.

[M'coli]

It's a different sort of emissions - the MOT tests the percentage of certain pollutants(CO and HCs), but road tax is measured on total quantity of CO2.

[Richard]

What happens if a post-2001 car gets chipped or even a bigger engine installed? Does it stay in the same tax band regardless?

[pogweasel]

Or is a knackered, 300k soot-blowing wreck?Yes, they don't move around the groups. So long as they can be coaxed through an MoT, that's all that matters. Totally farcical when you think about it.

[Ratdat]

That daft thing about the tax banding is, if they were to shift the banding on new cars to include those built after 2001 like they were originally going to, that'd make the tax on my Vel Satis £430 a year despite the fact that it can get nearly 50mpg driven sensibly.

[AXrescuer]

That daft thing about the tax banding is, if they were to shift the banding on new cars to include those built after 2001 like they were originally going to, that'd make the tax on my Vel Satis £430 a year despite the fact that it can get nearly 50mpg driven sensibly.

Yeah but I think it only takes into account emissions not fuel economy.

[Station]

An old work mate paid 14 pounds a year on her new Megane.

[Ratdat]

Yeah but I think it only takes into account emissions not fuel economy.

Exactly and that's where it all becomes a load of balls. If it was a car that did half the MPG it does now but emitted 10% less CO2 the tax would be cheaper despite the fact it'd be using up the worlds energy resources at TWICE the rate. Thus the energy used and pollution caused in the manufacture and transportation of the fuel used would also be doubled. As servicing is relative to mileage driven that would also mean twice as many oil changes for a given amount of fuel used, even assuming the same oil change interval (the vel Sat is 18k). That's the trouble with all this enviro bollocks... it doesn't look at the bigger picture.By adding punitive taxes on larger cars, all it does it exclude poorer people from owning them. It doesn't stop the wealthy from buying them in the first place as to them, whether the tax is £200 a year or £400 is irrelevant. It's small change when you're blowing 50k+ on a new car.

[Milford Cubicle]

Isn't co2 output directly linked with fuel economy?

[Albert Ross]

And my 1970 Diesel Land Rover is tax free, and belches out all sorts of clag!!!!!!It's great!

[FredTransit]

And we have a 1.6L transit and a 4.2L Daimler in the same tax bracket!

[Ratdat]

Isn't co2 output directly linked with fuel economy?

Our Vel Satis is a diseasel so I'm not sure if they band it on co2 or particulates or both. If it was in the banding for new cars now it'd be in the second highest yet it's not exactly uneconomical. It get's about 46 mpg cruising at 80 and will do as much as 36 pulling another car on a trailer! For a 1700kg car with a 3.0l turbo V6 those are pretty good numbers I'd say. Bizarrely it's about the most economical car we have apart from the Renault 5TL.