New VED Bands

[otolith]

It would appear that all post-2001 cars are being re-banded. Instead of the current arrangement which is banded A-G, and where cars remain in the band they were originally assigned to, all cars will be rebanded A-M. VED costs will be:

band	CO2	2009-10	2010-11
A	(<101)	£0	£0
B	(101-110)	£20	£20
C	(111-120)	£30	£35
D	(121-130)	£90	£95
E	(131-140)	£110	£115
F	(141-150)	£120	£125
G	(151-160)	£150	£155
H	(161-170)	£175	£180
I	(171-180)	£205	£210
J	(181-200)	£260	£270
K	(201-225)	£300	£310
L	(225-255)	£415	£430
M	(>255)	£440	£455

So my (currently band F 2005 RX-8) VED is going to increase from 210/year to 440 next year and 455 the year after.

I am furious.

Fing cts.

[otolith]

An extra £230 for the RX-8, an extra £190 for the MX-5, so for this household an extra £420 a year and going up to £445 a year the year after.

I wonder how much extra we've just lost in depreciation?

As we've moved house since that ct Wills assured me that there were no plans for further VED increases and now have a Tory MP, I can't even write an abusive email as a constituent.

[otolith]

pdV6 said:

Are they saying that these changes will be retrospective?

Yes. That's what really stinks about it.

[otolith]

Bungleaio said:

Where did you get the figures from mate?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_08bud08_completereport.pdf

[otolith]

evenflow said:

Does that mean in 2010 you'd pay £455+£950 = £1405 for a band M car?

No, it means the first year it would be 950 and thereafter it would be 455.


You know, I'm almost tempted to get rid of the cars, buy a dirt cheap diesel to drive it like I hate it and then spend all of my disposable income on long haul flights to polar bear hunting expeditions.

Although, I have always wanted an RX-7.

[otolith]

sixspeed said:

All the car "enthusiasts" who are the ones that bleat on about road-pricing.. how much "fairer" is that road pricing going to look

The objection to road pricing is that it will effectively turn the whole road network into a SPECs system. That and the fact that it will create a whole new opportunity for more stealth tax on top of VED and fuel tax. Anyone who thinks it will replace other taxes has had his head up his arse since 1997.

[otolith]

It will, of course, be ignored with the usual platitudes, but I would implore everyone who is disgusted by this to sign the petition against it;

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/UNFAIR-VED/

[otolith]

kambites said:

I'd be interested to know how many people with post 2001 cars didn't see this (or something very similar) coming when they bought their car.

I expected the precedent already set to continue, whereby cars stayed in the band they were in when you bought them. I expected more new bands, I just didn't expect it to be retrospective.

[otolith]

kambites said:

otolith said:

kambites said:

I'd be interested to know how many people with post 2001 cars didn't see this (or something very similar) coming when they bought their car.

I expected the precedent already set to continue, whereby cars stayed in the band they were in when you bought them. I expected more new bands, I just didn't expect it to be retrospective.

But if they'd done that, they would just have pushed band-F up to, say, 500 quid a year, and band-G up to 700... or something. The new bands aren't really the problem, the amount they cost are.

No, they wouldn't, because it would have been too large an increase for too many people to be politically acceptable. What I expected was a new band H at > 250g/km and £600 - ish. People who bought band G cars post-2006 are not seeing much of an increase; only £40 on top of what they knew was going to happen when they bought the car. People who bought cars which will be band M but which were band F when they bought them are in for absolutely massive increases.

[otolith]

Welshbeef said:

I mean the 118d M Sport will cost you £30 yet that has 144bhp 0-60 in under 9 seconds and 135mph top speed & RWD. To get a petrol delivering the same pace (ignoring the in gear benefits of a diesel) your going to be spending £260.!!!

True, diesel sales will benefit from this. To be honest, though, there's no way I'd spend the price of a 118D and still not have a car I'd enjoy driving.

Edited by otolith on Thursday 13th March 10:26

[otolith]

Welshbeef said:

Esch to their own - however if you willing to be paying say over a 5 year ownership period £2200 VED vs £150 and clearly the near on 100% higher MPG on the diesel & take a much bigger hit on depreciation then fiar enough. To me though Id rather the cash & Id assume with this credit crunch and collapse of share prices & high interest rates that most people will feel the same they will also be keeping their cars for longer so rather than 3 years run it for 5 years this will lower the value of 2nd hand cars.

It's more of a case of what I'm willing to spend money on. I'll happily spend 20k on a car I want, but there's no way that I'd spend that sort of money on something I don't. So rather than a 118D, I'd buy 3000's worth of diesel Focus. Sure it won't be as good, but since I can't muster any enthusiasm for either car I wouldn't be making an enthusiast's choice.

[otolith]

kambites said:

I thought you got back the full amount for any complete months remaining?

There was something buried in the budget detail aimed at preventing this. Ah, here we go:

Budget 2008 announces that vehicle excise duty (VED) refunds will be restricted to
the registered keeper of a vehicle and applicable only when a vehicle has: been stolen,
destroyed, sold or otherwise disposed of; become eligible for a nil licence; been declared as
statutorily off-the-road; or been permanently exported. This will help ensure that motorists
cannot avoid paying a pre-announced rate of VED.

[otolith]

£740 here, 300 for the MX-5, 440 for the RX-8.

[otolith]

Welshbeef said:

Remember the fuel escallator is back in for 2010 .... thats going to make fuel thirsty cars like the RX8, Focus ST etc really have a low demand.

Oh yes. I'm now pretty much resigned to keeping it another three years and then trading it in for pennies. Depreciation on anything petrol and interesting is going to be catastrophic.

Welshbeef said:

In fact Mazda may have to rethink launching the next gen car in the UK as who would buy it?

The facelift RX-8 is out this summer. I had my doubts about whether they would bother. The all new car should be out in 2010 with the new 16X rotary. It's promising lower fuel consumption, but frankly the EU's planned corporate CO2 cap means that I doubt anyone will be selling affordable petrol performance cars by then. Even if it's down to 230g/km - ish (unlikely), it's still going to be a problem. I can see cars like the RX-8 and the 350Z being withdrawn from sale in Europe.

Edited by otolith on Thursday 13th March 12:29

[otolith]

Welshbeef said:

SO any RX8 owners sell quickly, any 147 GTA drivers sell quickly otherwise the amount you are going to lose in depreciation will far far outweigh the swollow the extra VED & fuel costs.

I suspect it's already happened. In any case, there's really nothing to replace it with that's any cheaper.

[otolith]

Welshbeef said:

330i = more power & RWD & vastly cheaper.

3 series doesn't do it for me. Nice car, but too comfort orientated and too much of a motorway saloon car, even in coupe form.

In any case, for what I'd get for my 30,000 mile three year old car I'd be looking at a seven or eight year old 231ps car with 100,000+ miles on it. I suppose I could get a pre-2001 car an only pay 200/year tax, but it doesn't really appeal.

Edited by otolith on Thursday 13th March 14:01

[otolith]

V-spec said:

I have no idea why a VX220 would have worse official fuel economy figures than a 5 series BMW - maybe GM doesn't test it's cars at the right tracks - but this is your answer.

Or maybe BMW spend a huge amount of time tweaking their cars to optimise the test cycle, and Lotus/Vauxhall don't?

It's all done on a rolling road, by the way, using some coast down data for air resistance.

[otolith]

polus said:

Vesuvius 996 said:

They collect it from decent people who work, and distribute it to the feckless failures who become dependent on benefit, and who vote the c'nts back in.

Simple.

Yep, but where are the figures to show this

This is depressing:

Over half of adults on benefits in 60 neighbourhoods of Britain

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/art...

Oh, and to add an extra few degrees to the bladder, it mentions this:

article said:

The mother of Scarlett Keeling, the Devon teenager found murdered on an Indian beach, has described how she saved more than £7,000 from child and other benefits to pay for the holiday that ended in tragedy.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Fiona MacKeown said she had saved £200 per week from benefits and other sources of income for nine months.

She also revealed that Scarlett was left in Goa without money for food or accommodation, which was provided by a 25-year-old tour operator that she later discovered was having a sexual relationship with her daughter.

[otolith]

You might be able to make a decent commuter car on the basis that constant speed motorway cruising doesn't need much power and energy storage in batteries or capacitors can suffice for brief, infrequent bouts of acceleration.

How much fun is it going to be on this?



OK, extreme example, but it's still going to suffer cross-country on a British B-road. The combined outputs of regenerative braking and puny engine are not going to be able to meet the average energy demands of prolonged repeated hard acceleration and braking on a twisty road driven hard.

[otolith]

Welshbeef said:

Well in my 5 speed fiat coupe 70mph in 5th is 2,800rpm. Peak power of 220 is at 5,500rpm so assuming an incorrect linear power delivery of 0bhp at 750rpm (idle - again incorrect as it will drive at idle) and 220bhp at 5,500rpm then at 2,800rpm Im using only 130bhp.

Your car has 110bhp @ 2500rpm, if that helps. (229lbft * 2500 / 5252)