advertisement


Ouch

I'm quite disappointed to read what mpgs modern petrol cars are doing, I just assumed it would be much more. My 9 year old focus tdci diesel gives 59 mpg day in day out. I'm hoping to keep it going long enough to get a decent range electric or hydrogen when prices come down.
 
I'm quite disappointed to read what mpgs modern petrol cars are doing, I just assumed it would be much more. My 9 year old focus tdci diesel gives 59 mpg day in day out. I'm hoping to keep it going long enough to get a decent range electric or hydrogen when prices come down.

I don’t think anyone can level any criticism at the mpg figures being mentioned here for petrol cars. There’s a theoretical limit to what can be achieved with any fuel, and at least petrol cars have improved. Diesel cars have been the big disappointment over the last 15 years.
 
when i saw the subject line and clicked through, i expected to see pictures of physical injuries!!! not injuries to the wallet!
 
An old mate has a C63 estate with the proper 6.2 V8, an Alfa 4C, a Gilbern Invader Mk3, and a Kia EV of some sort.

He’s using the Kia quite a lot these days.
 
Have only just become aware of the sneaky ‘luxury car tax’, any vehicle over £40k incurs additional VED in years 2-5. Completely puts me off changing.
Due to delivery delays back at the start of the pandemic in 2020, my car's delivery date slipped from March to May which coincided with a change in VED rates. This resulted in an additional £760 charge which is just bullshit - they might as well just be honest and call it what it is - an 'envy tax'. First year's VED was £1420, year 2-5 is £520. And don't get me started on councils charging for parking based on emissions; utterly absurd...

VED is a ridiculous mess of a system; it should be abolished and put on fuel, that way vehicles which do higher mileage and/or consume more fuel pay more tax. In the current model, my car will cost £3,500 in VED in the first five years whilst doing an average of 7k miles a year. Someone else in a sub-£40k car would pay less VED even if they were doing 3x the mileage. It just doesn't make any sense. At least with VED on fuel people would be paying for what they actually use (and pollute), it would also be nearly impossible to avoid paying it and you could get rid of an entire (inefficient) department of government that deals with VED. It would also mean that foreign drivers would be contributing toward road-related costs such as wear and tear etc where currently they do not.

The issue of trucks and diesel and delivery costs could be handled through rebates/tax allowances etc in the same way companies don't pay VAT on purchases etc, also any VED for commercial vehicles could be removed too.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the insistence/push for smart meters is so that the gov't/energy companies can spot a car being plugged in to charge and apply a higher rate of tax to the electricity for that period. The gov't make around £7.2bn in VED at present and around £26bn in fuel duty (plus the VAT on the fuel and duty). They're not going to watch that £30bn+ disappear without finding a way to charge electric car owners for it somehow.

There's already talk of trying to find other 'non-exhaust emissions' to hit drivers with such as 'brake dust particulates' and rubber from tyre wear. When you can't tax an EV on emissions they'll darn well find something else.

It seems many won't be happy until we're back in the stone age.
 
I don’t think anyone can level any criticism at the mpg figures being mentioned here for petrol cars. There’s a theoretical limit to what can be achieved with any fuel, and at least petrol cars have improved. Diesel cars have been the big disappointment over the last 15 years.
Not sure I agree. My Audi A2 was revolutionary at the time (1999-2005) and my model, a late 2004, had an uprated (90PS) version of the modern, 1.4 litre 3-cylinder TDI, I got, over a lifetime average, around 50mpg, which included a lot of commuting in traffic, and high speed motorway work. My wife's Seat Ibiza of 5 years later gives very similar mpg from the venerable 1.9 litre, 105PS 4-cylinder TDI, in a car which weighed perhaps 20% more. Move on 5 years and average mpg figures for diesels are hovering nearer to 60 for smaller cars, and 40-45 for even quite large cars. I'd class that as quite significant improvement.
 
Due to delivery delays back at the start of the pandemic in 2020, my car's delivery date slipped from March to May which coincided with a change in VED rates. This resulted in an additional £760 charge which is just bullshit - they might as well just be honest and call it what it is - an 'envy tax'. First year's VED was £1420, year 2-5 is £520. And don't get me started on councils charging for parking based on emissions; utterly ridiculous...

VED is a ridiculous mess of a system; it should be abolished and put on fuel, that way vehicles which do higher mileage and/or consume more fuel pay more tax. In the current model, my car will cost £3,500 in VED in the first five years whilst doing an average of 7k miles a year. Someone else in a sub-£40k car would pay less VED even if they were doing 3x the mileage. It just doesn't make any sense. At least with VED on fuel people would be paying for what they actually use (and pollute), it would also be nearly impossible to avoid paying it and you could get rid of an entire (inefficient) department of government that deals with VED. It would also mean that foreign drivers would be contributing toward road-related costs such as wear and tear etc where currently they do not.

The issue of trucks and diesel and delivery costs could be handled through rebates/tax allowances etc in the same way companies don't pay VAT on purchases etc, also any VED for commercial vehicles could be removed too.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the insistence/push for smart meters is so that the gov't/energy companies can spot a car being plugged in to charge and apply a higher rate of tax to the electricity for that period. The gov't make around £7.2bn in VED at present and around £26bn in fuel duty (plus the VAT on the fuel and duty). They're not going to watch that £26bn disappear without finding a way to charge electric car owners for it somehow.

There's already talk of trying to find other 'non-exhaust emissions' to hit drivers with such as 'brake dust particulates' and rubber from tyre wear. When you can't tax an EV on emissions they'll darn well find something else.

It seems many won't be happy until we're back in the stone age.
Taxing fuel doesn't work as you would hope because it penalises those in rural areas who have to cover larger disances and who have no alternatives in the form of public transport. For the likes of me in a city, great. I cover lowish mileage (other than for work), there's a bus stop at the end of my street and I live a 15-20 minute walk from a railway station. Not so rural areas where the nearest supermarket is 6 miles away and no bus. The solution for me is road charging. That way the pensioner trundling off to Bury St Edmunds once a week for the shopping isn't penalised, but the city commuter who wants to use the car will pay for it, because city roads would be heavily taxed and little lanes in tractorland wouldn't. If the drivers in town don't want to pay for it, they can get the bus (/walk/cycle/train). This is not in my interest, I live on the edge of a city and the bulk of my driving is motorways on Monday mornings and Friday nights, I'd get battered. However I do accept that I have an alternative to the car, if I can be bothered.
 
we've had a lot of engine changes recently.
Looking back, 2008 Merc 2.8 diesel averaged 41 mpg
2.2 Honda 4X4 diesel averaged 46
1.1 3 cyl Suzuki 4x4 petrol av 43
much newer 2018 merc 2.2 diesel 4x4 averaged 48
this Honda hybrid CRV 4x4 (90% use of petrol engine) is doing 42.

Nothing terrible, nothing great, though the mercs performance and 4x4 system with near 2 tons was most impresive. Highly advanced engine that and withoute the estate body and 4x4 probably over 50 with ease.

The hybrid is to ease ageing brains into an electronic future. It's rubbish as an economy car, but VG in all other respects
High hopes for hydrogen here, but waiting at least 5/6 years now to see what settles. If we find fuel costs too much we have the bus.
 
I'm quite disappointed to read what mpgs modern petrol cars are doing, I just assumed it would be much more. My 9 year old focus tdci diesel gives 59 mpg day in day out. I'm hoping to keep it going long enough to get a decent range electric or hydrogen when prices come down.
A lot of it comes down to what people expect in terms of power output, size and weight for a modern car. Modern cars are both heavier and more powerful than those of even a few years ago. I used to drive a 1992 Cavalier, at about 1.25T and 115 bhp it was regarded as a luxury car. Not now, a standard hatch is as heavy and much more powerful. We all know that a Focus TDCi is an entirely satisfactory solution to most people's motoring needs, it's quick enough, big enough for most, comfortable enough, but do people want to buy them? No chance. Wrong badge, not enough performance (this in a country where the roads are lined with cameras and road speeds have reduced by 15-20% in the last 20 years) and just not aspirational enough. A 90-100 bhp medium hatch? Oh dear no. What would the neighbours think?
 
Believe me, my previous C Class saloon was too small. Carrying a wheelchair everywhere and quite often a walker too isn’t easy. A trailer is an additional responsibility and I’ve nowhere to store it. A roof rack and box would be fine, but after my hernia op last year, I’m reluctant to take a risk on that front.

I investigated every option I could think of, even hired a few examples for a week at a time, and a large estate was the stand out best option.
Ah, if you're regularly using a wheelchair and walker, than that's different. We bought a diesel Sharan when that became a critical need for the FiL. Utterly horrible vehicle to drive, but easy to fit mobility aids into and far easier for the mobility impaired to get in and out of than an estate car.
 
A lot of it comes down to what people expect in terms of power output, size and weight for a modern car. Modern cars are both heavier and more powerful than those of even a few years ago. I used to drive a 1992 Cavalier, at about 1.25T and 115 bhp it was regarded as a luxury car. Not now, a standard hatch is as heavy and much more powerful. We all know that a Focus TDCi is an entirely satisfactory solution to most people's motoring needs, it's quick enough, big enough for most, comfortable enough, but do people want to buy them? No chance. Wrong badge, not enough performance (this in a country where the roads are lined with cameras and road speeds have reduced by 15-20% in the last 20 years) and just not aspirational enough. A 90-100 bhp medium hatch? Oh dear no. What would the neighbours think?
I partly agree. A lot of the weight and girth growth I lay at the door of NCAP, or more precisely: manufacturers chasing ever higher NCAP safety scores for marketing purposes. Cars get wider to get better scores on side impact protection; cars get heavier to get better scores on front and rear impact or rollover protection. Wider, heavier cars can also be made quieter for not much extra penalty, so enhancing the luxury, cocoon-like feel (which can insulate drivers from outside conditions, and thus negatively impact on safety by reducing driver arousal, and increasing risk-taking).

But there's another difference between the workaday brands and the aspirational ones, and that's on the inside. Ford interiors are, for my money, mostly irredeemably awful places to be. VW and Audi are rather better, BMW and Volvo better still. Given that I spend my quality time with my car on the inside, that's a deciding factor for me. It's why I'd never have a Focus, it has nothing to do with brand snobbery* and everything to do with not wanting to drive around inside a 1980s boombox stereo.

*I used to like Fords, and everybody says how great the Focus is to drive, and how economical it can be.
 
Taxing fuel doesn't work as you would hope because it penalises those in rural areas who have to cover larger disances and who have no alternatives in the form of public transport. For the likes of me in a city, great. I cover lowish mileage (other than for work), there's a bus stop at the end of my street and I live a 15-20 minute walk from a railway station. Not so rural areas where the nearest supermarket is 6 miles away and no bus. The solution for me is road charging. That way the pensioner trundling off to Bury St Edmunds once a week for the shopping isn't penalised, but the city commuter who wants to use the car will pay for it, because city roads would be heavily taxed and little lanes in tractorland wouldn't. If the drivers in town don't want to pay for it, they can get the bus (/walk/cycle/train). This is not in my interest, I live on the edge of a city and the bulk of my driving is motorways on Monday mornings and Friday nights, I'd get battered. However I do accept that I have an alternative to the car, if I can be bothered.
I have fundamental objections to road charging on the basis of privacy (assuming you're talking about GPS-style tracking rather than toll booths on motorways etc).

I still think VED on fuel is better than the current model. Another benefit I hadn't thought of; those with car collections pay through the nose for the privilege, even if rare/exotic cars do insignificant mileage. A person can only drive one car at once so being charged a) on the distance they drive and b) based on the economy of the vehicle they're in seems a much fairer way to do things.

Also let's not forget that whilst those in rural areas need a car more than someone in a city, they probably enjoy a much lower cost of living overall than someone in an expensive city location so perhaps swings/roundabouts. At the moment they pay the same VED and fuel costs as someone living in a city anyway, surely?
 
Despite all the ouching, the roads are still chockablock with cars.

Indeed. At what fuel cost would we see meaningful traffic reduction? EV’s are going to get whacked as well at some point, no question (as well as on the eye watering purchase price).
 
I have fundamental objections to road charging on the basis of privacy (assuming you're talking about GPS-style tracking rather than toll booths on motorways etc).
I hope you don't carry a phone then.

I still think VED on fuel is better than the current model. Another benefit I hadn't thought of; those with car collections pay through the nose for the privilege, even if rare/exotic cars do insignificant mileage.
Classic cars over X years old already enjoy zero VED.

Also let's not forget that whilst those in rural areas need a car more than someone in a city, they probably enjoy a much lower cost of living overall than someone in an expensive city location so perhaps swings/roundabouts.
Oh please. Give over. My housing (LS28 postcode area) is cheaper per sq m than anywhere in the desirable villages to the N of Leeds. That's before I even take the mick and tell you how cheap housing is in Bradford (for good reasons, obviously).
At the moment they pay the same VED and fuel costs as someone living in a city anyway, surely?
Same VED, but more fuel costs. I can walk to 3 big supermarkets in 15 minutes from my outer Leeds location, not so my friend in a village near Ilkley. He's not walking anywhere, and it's a long wait for a bus. He has to drive, minimum is about 8 miles to Ilkley or Otley, a bit more to say Guiseley (outer Leeds). Even if I drive, I have a choice of 3 within a mile, buses to each of them.
 
do you object to ANPR in the same way?
ANPR is fundamentally and conceptually different. Law enforcement has to request access to fixed ANPR camera data, citing good reason. Nobody else has access. ANPR cameras are located at strategic points on the road network, it's not constant monitoring.

I hope you don't carry a phone then.
That's also different. Again, access to phone tracking data (mast pings, triangulation, etc) is controlled by strict rules of access under, for example, the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

The thing that'd be different about road pricing is that every metre of every journey would need to be logged, and the data routinely made available to HMRC (or whichever agency is tasked with recovering the charges). It's a much more granular dataset than either ANPR or mobile phone location data would be.
 
do you object to ANPR in the same way?

ANPR is fundamentally and conceptually different. Law enforcement has to request access to fixed ANPR camera data, citing good reason. Nobody else has access. ANPR cameras are located at strategic points on the road network, it's not constant monitoring.

I hope you don't carry a phone then.

That's also different. Again, access to phone tracking data (mast pings, triangulation, etc) is controlled by strict rules of access under, for example, the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

The thing that'd be different about road pricing is that every metre of every journey would need to be logged, and the data routinely made available to HMRC (or whichever agency is tasked with recovering the charges). It's a much more granular dataset than either ANPR or mobile phone location data would be.
Thanks, summed up what I was about to reply. It's also not 24/7 real-time tracking.

Classic cars over X years old already enjoy zero VED.
Correct for classic cars but people with collections often have newer cars (such as supercars etc). The knee-jerk response is often, "Well if they can afford a bunch of supercars then they can afford to pay loads of tax on them too," and we're back to the politics of envy rather than sensible/workable VED/tax policies. Let's not also forget that buyers will have paid shedloads in VAT on the purchase of their expensive cars too.

Oh - we've forgotten to talk about VED 'double-dipping' on a change-over month. Apparently they think it's fair to charge the seller to the end of the month and the buyer from the start of the same month, meaning they get twice the VED revenue for that month. It will have been designed that way as it's clearly possible to design a system that could go down to a daily basis. Complete con.
 


advertisement


Back
Top