looking at a forester xt

[Ved]

Yep and one reason why I went for an EJ20. However in lower power application like this and the WRX they're pretty good.

[RB Will]

I thought the 2.5s were fine in lower power applications, certainly a better daily driver then the 2.0.

We had a Ferester XTen with the PPP so 255bhp and it was faultless to 110k miles when it was written off and that included a regular good beating on the roads and a trip to the Ring!

I thought the 2.5 was more of a problem at 300+bhp so anything STI

[corvus]

Unless you buy an early 2.5 then the £500 tax will sting. It would put me off buying a later one, shame really.

[v8250]

corvus said:

Unless you buy an early 2.5 then the £500 tax will sting. It would put me off buying a later one, shame really.

There's a better way of calculating FXT operational costs. Amortise the £500 p.a. VED over the number of years of ownership...then try and find such a capable car from another manufacturer for the total cost of ownership; they don't exist. So, just go buy the very best FXT you can find and accept the VED cost. I guarantee there is not another car that comes close to the all round usability : cost ratio of an FXT

[corvus]

v8250 said:

So, just go buy the very best FXT you can find and accept the VED cost.

No thanks. There is a threshold in my mind and £500 is way over that threshold. I have a better idea. Reduce that ridiculous figure to something more palatable. Who actually drives tens of thousands of miles in a car with a relatively thirsty engine with high CO2? Or any other model for that matter. Meaning that people who own these cars actually aren't contributing more CO2 than a mega mileage diesel. Think I'll stick to my band K Forester.