New goverment car tax rules from April 2017. Your thoughts?

Ectophile

Richard53 wrote: »

Dead right. I always said that the greenest car on the planet (lifetime emissions/resources) is an old Land Rover. All its manufacturing costs are in the past, it may emit more during use, but it is infinitely repairable, so could be kept going cheaply for another 20-30 years if necessary.

As someone who used to own an old Land Rover, I'm not convinced by that.

Part of the procedure for starting it from cold was to look over my left shoulder to make sure nobody was walking past at the time. Otherwise any unfortunate pedestrian would have found themselves engulfed in a huge cloud of evil-smelling grey smoke.

When it was running, it gave about 23 miles per gallon of diesel. And it didn't have to meet modern emissions standards.

Eventually, I got rid of it because it was falling to bits. Everything on it may have been replaceable, but you get to the point where the cost of the repairs exceeds the value of the vehicle.

Strider590

Ectophile wrote: »

As someone who used to own an old Land Rover, I'm not convinced by that.

Part of the procedure for starting it from cold was to look over my left shoulder to make sure nobody was walking past at the time. Otherwise any unfortunate pedestrian would have found themselves engulfed in a huge cloud of evil-smelling grey smoke.

When it was running, it gave about 23 miles per gallon of diesel. And it didn't have to meet modern emissions standards.

Eventually, I got rid of it because it was falling to bits. Everything on it may have been replaceable, but you get to the point where the cost of the repairs exceeds the value of the vehicle.

I think things have changed, old Defenders are worth a small fortune these days......

roddydogs

So there not much point in producing "Low Emission" cars, theres no tax advantage any more?. And yes, we all believe the extra money will go on roads (Ha Ha)

takman

roddydogs wrote: »

So there not much point in producing "Low Emission" cars, theres no tax advantage any more?. And yes, we all believe the extra money will go on roads (Ha Ha)

Emissions are directly linked to a cars MPG; the higher the MPG the lower the emissions!. So considering that a cars MPG is a big selling point low emission cars will still be produced.

Richard53

Ectophile wrote: »

As someone who used to own an old Land Rover, I'm not convinced by that.

Part of the procedure for starting it from cold was to look over my left shoulder to make sure nobody was walking past at the time. Otherwise any unfortunate pedestrian would have found themselves engulfed in a huge cloud of evil-smelling grey smoke.

When it was running, it gave about 23 miles per gallon of diesel. And it didn't have to meet modern emissions standards.

Eventually, I got rid of it because it was falling to bits. Everything on it may have been replaceable, but you get to the point where the cost of the repairs exceeds the value of the vehicle.

As someone who has owned several old Land Rovers, I would agree to some extent. My S2a had a new carb and cyl head and was as clean as a whistle for its age and type, but would give me 25 mpg at best. But then I wasn't batting up and down the motorway doing 50k miles a year either.

My argument is really against the mindset that thinks that if a new car is less polluting, it must be a good idea to scrap an old car and to make room for it. By the time you have dug up the ores and smelted them into body panels, refined all the petroleum to make the plastics, and transported all this stuff half way round the world to an assembly plant, you have used a massive amount of resources. Or, you could have given your Landy a new chassis (local materials, local labour) and it would be good for another 40-50 years. New, low-emissions cars may be greener in use, but that is far from the whole story.

pinkteapot

I'm surprised there hasn't been more publicity about the changes. So many new cars are currently £30 or less and they'll all be £140. That's a massive change.

I assume they're doing it because the manufacturers have managed to get the emissions down so much, since the move to emissions-based VED.

We've currently got a Skoda Superb on order to replace our Mondeo. They're about the same size, both 2l diesels with similar horse power. The Mondeo costs us £130 a year to tax and the Superb will be £30 (and it would have been £20 if we'd gone manual rather than automatic). That's insane*.

I would say that if you were planning to replace your car with a brand new car in the next year or two, do it before the tax change. Over five years you'll save up to £700. On top of that, the Brexit effect on the pound and resultant inflation is bound to filter through to new car prices at some point. 10% on a car would be a significant amount. The earlier comments saying that the tax is irrelevant compared to the depreciation on a new car are true, but if you want one, it makes sense to do it while it's cheaper!

*OK, so Skoda are part of the VW Group so the emissions are probably lies, but if the DVLA believe them who are we to argue?

AdrianC

pinkteapot wrote: »

I'm surprised there hasn't been more publicity about the changes.

There was a fair bit at the time it was first announced - July 2015, the post-election budget.

motorguy

gilberto wrote: »

The changes only apply to brand new cars registered from April 2017. Current cars will still pay £30

Indeed, another good reason why i'm glad we've our A45 now, rather than come April... :beer:

prosaver

gilberto wrote: »

The changes only apply to brand new cars registered from April 2017. Current cars will still pay £30

So there might be a big rush to buy now..:beer:
Is the òp a car sales man

motorguy

prosaver wrote: »

So there might be a big rush to buy now..:beer:
Is the òp a car sales man

I would say there will be a rush to get cars registered by the end of march. This time of the year is traditionally quiet.

Likewise, you're really only moving the sales forward, not generating new ones.