Worst VED £/hp ratio?

[Tam_Mullen]

I have a car which incurs Band M tax at an eye watering £790 a year, but I don t really mind because it s a 6.2L V8 and seems perfectly inline with the car/engine.

This got me thinking what the most egregious difference between car + tax burden.

A bit of guessing and googling uncovered that the Mk1.5 VW Sharan with a the 115hp 2.0 NA engine and automatic box also lands in Band M.

Can anyone else think of any other egregious examples?

Edited by Tam_Mullen on Wednesday 26th August 07:39

[Simon_GH]

Unless someone really needs a petrol van / mpv I think you’ve set a high bar.

[Studio263]

Normal VED rate is £375 now, that captures a lot of low powered stuff that you probably wouldn't want to drive.

[theposhboy]

Daewoo/Chevrolet Tacuma 2.0 auto from memory, rfl because as much as car was worth

[Nickp82]

As far as cars that are actually interesting are concerned , Mazda RX-8s are top top RFL band. They don’t make quoted power so the lower 192ps model actually makes maybe 170…. but costs £790 to tax. Still great cars though.

[Pixelpeep Electric]

Surely (don't call me Shirley) it's gotta be an X5/RR of some configuration?

[Pixelpeep Electric]

VW Sharan 2.0 Auto (Mk1.5) 115 bhp
Ford Galaxy 2.3 Auto 145 bhp
Seat Alhambra 2.0 Auto 115 bhp
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2.4 Auto 143 bhp
Vauxhall Zafira 2.2 Auto 147 bhp
Nissan X-Trail 2.5 Auto 165 bhp
Jeep Cherokee 3.7 V6 204 bhp
Hyundai Trajet 2.7 V6 Auto 173 bhp

These are all £760 a year to tax

Don't feel so bad now about paying £160 a year for my Polestar

[supacool1]

Subaru Impreza Sti 2.5 300ish bhp
Nissan 350/370Z 300ish bhp
Porsche Cayman S Mk 1 290ish bhp
Mercedes SLK 320 290ish bhp
Alfa Brerra V6 3.2 260ish bhp
Any 2000's era Saab Turbo 220-260bhp


Sad really...Some of the above are great cars....

[Hub]

theposhboy said:

Daewoo/Chevrolet Tacuma 2.0 auto from memory, rfl because as much as car was worth

Yeah, the 2 litre version. 120bho, 0-60 11.7 seconds. I thought there would be none left but there is one for sale on auto trader.

Some fairly mid range 2.0 litre Saabs also had very high tax

[MinusOne]

Tam_Mullen said:

tax at an eye watering £790 a year

You are so lucky in UK. In Austria you would have to pay that amount for a car with 216hp.

[Gary C]

Nickp82 said:

As far as cars that are actually interesting are concerned , Mazda RX-8s are top top RFL band. They don t make quoted power so the lower 192ps model actually makes maybe 170 . but costs £790 to tax. Still great cars though.

I sold mine when the cost of the tax exceeded the cost of insurance, utter madness.

My 3.2 Carrera is 'only' £375 but soon to be freeeeeee.

[Alex_225]

My old Mitsubishi Shogun Sport was pretty poor when it came to VED vs BHP. £445 per year and 114bhp from the 2.5 diesel engine.

[LightweightLouisDanvers]

Pixelpeep Electric said:

VW Sharan 2.0 Auto (Mk1.5) 115 bhp
Ford Galaxy 2.3 Auto 145 bhp
Seat Alhambra 2.0 Auto 115 bhp
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2.4 Auto 143 bhp
Vauxhall Zafira 2.2 Auto 147 bhp
Nissan X-Trail 2.5 Auto 165 bhp
Jeep Cherokee 3.7 V6 204 bhp
Hyundai Trajet 2.7 V6 Auto 173 bhp

These are all £760 a year to tax

Don't feel so bad now about paying £160 a year for my Polestar

Haven't heard of, or seen a Hyundai Tragic in years!

[andy43]

3 litre Renaults and Subarus were afflicted with Stupid Tax but they’d outperform a 2 litre VW - that’s quite an impressive find.

[Quhet]

It's a bit of a shame that some older cars are effectively worthless because of their cost to tax. Would be great if a flat rate of tax could be applied on all cars over 20 to 25 years old or so

[TomTheTyke]

I suspect I have the same car (how many 6.2 V8s are there?). Mine’s done about 3000 miles so far this year, with 500 of that not on UK roads. Not exactly good value.

Still, if I was getting rid of anything it d probably be my daily driver Rover which I ve just taxed at £440 as it s the 2.5 V6. Something that s £20 tax and 40mpg seems very tempting. However, the Rover is old but well sorted (eg recent new clutch) so if I get a Panda or something and too much goes wrong I ve wiped out that year s advantage.

Anyway, both of those therefore have tax costs at multiples of the insurance cost which is a bit depressing.

[untakenname]

My RX8 has roughly 200hp and costs £790 a year, for the amount I use it on public roads it's over a pound per mile

WRX isn't as bad as I now use it as my daily so cost per mile has gone down, still pisses me off that you can get a dieselgate era VW and pay £20 a year VED despite putting out 100x more particulates.

[cerb4.5lee]

Tam_Mullen said:

I have a car which incurs Band M tax at an eye watering £790 a year, but I don t really mind because it s a 6.2L V8 and seems perfectly inline with the car/engine.

This got me thinking what the most egregious difference between car + tax burden.

You've done it the right way I think, and I've only got a V6 3.7 litre engine for my £790 in comparison. So if I were to do it again, I've definitely grab the biggest V8 that I could find as well.

[mac96]

Nickp82 said:

As far as cars that are actually interesting are concerned , Mazda RX-8s are top top RFL band. They don t make quoted power so the lower 192ps model actually makes maybe 170 . but costs £790 to tax. Still great cars though.

It is sort of logical though- they use as much petrol as a V8! Actually in my case I got fewer MPG in the 231 bhp RX8 (rumoured to actually be nearer 200bhp) than I do in a 440bhp Mustang, which is also heavier!
Agree they are great cars.

[SuperPav]

while I think the 2.0 auto Sharan does take gold, I've got a T4 California 1.9D (non turbo) which is £360odd quid to tax, and that has (or rather had when new)... 61hp.