[Article] Irish Independent Alleged VRT Scam

zilog_jones

The article Hotwheels quoted was a good laugh - they haven't a clue:

Cars are registered as low-cc vehicles, when in fact they are turbo-charged cars designed to travel at top speeds, significantly above the legal limits.

That makes no sense. Engine displacement is not directly proportional to power - as others said you can have an old non-turbo 2 litre diesel that does about 60 bhp, and then there's the Starlet Glanza V which is a 1.3 turbo which does 135 ps stock. And just to clarify - there is such a thing as a non-turbo Glanza - the Glanza S - though it's still more powerful than a standard 1.3 Starlet IIRC. And then there's highly-tuned naturally aspirated cars like some of the 1.6 and 1.8 Honda VTECs - they're not turbos, but still powerful!
And what car "is designed to travel at top speeds"? That is utter bollox - these cars just have higher top speeds. Learn how to write plz thx.
And just because they're turbos, doesn't mean they're like ultra-powerful - there are pretty low-pressure turbos, I think some Saabs and (maybe) Audis/VWs like that.

Cars are registered as low-cc vehicles, when in fact they are turbo-charged cars designed to travel at top speeds, significantly above the legal limits

I have a 1.3 Fiesta that does 60 bhp, registered as a 1.3. Someone has a Glanza 1.3 that does 135 bhp, but it still can only be registered as a 1.3!! They are missing the point completely - the problem is that whoever does the VRCs (the Department of the Environment?) don't care about the power output of the cars, or the power-to-weight ratio - beyond the VRT anyway.

Many of these high-performance imported cars are having their electronic transmissions "chipped". This process transforms the cars and makes it travel much faster.

Wow, they know what they're on about - electronic transmissions, now? :rolleyes:

Many used cars imported from England are having their mileage clocks turned up to pay a lower VRT rate. The clocks are then turned back before being sold.

Why is that just randomly stuck in the middle of the article? That is a completely different issue, and has little to do with "boy racers" scamming VRT and insurance with high-power cars.

Part of the new check...would be to determine that the car has the proper specifications as determined by its manufacturer.

That's not particularly easy to do without a rolling road, which won't be cheap. I suppose it'll be easy enough to identify induction kits, upgraded turbos/intercoolers and whatever - but one can not guess the power output all that easily.

Most of the cars getting into the hands of boy racers are believed to be Japanese imports, often sold on the side of the road.

Dunno about you but I only see dodgy pieces of crap being sold on the side of the road. Most imports I see for sale around here are from big dealers who specialise in them (like Enterprise Cars on the Dock Road - fookin rip-off btw!).

In the UK, the vehicle licensing authority had access to the vehicle's identification number as well as its registration details.

Morons. The writer could have looked at his/her own VRC to see that it has the VIN on it - but that may not necessarily help at all.
This is what I can tell from my car's VIN:
- It is a European Ford
- It is a 5 door
- It is from the British Ford model line
- It was built in Dagenham, in England
- It is a Fiesta
- It was built in March 1998

The VIN doesn't tell me if it's a 60bhp 1.3, a 75bhp 1.25, a 90bhp 1.4 or a 60bhp 1.8 diesel. Hell, if there was a 250bhp 3.0 V6 available at the time it wouldn't tell me that either!

However, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_automobile_VIN_codes and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_VIN_codes, Honda specify the engine and spec level in their US VINs, and Toyota specify the engine in their US VINs - dunno if their Japanese and European VINs do the same though (VIN standards are different in the US), so at least there's half a chance they could find out the power of cars from some makes.

I think they need to get their asses in gear and make it mandatory to get the VRCs filled out properly. The VRC has the provisions for power output, mass and power-to-weight ratio - it should not be allowed for all these to be just left as "0" like on my VRC. Since my car was not a used import, they could have made an educated guess from the other fields (engine size and body type) that it had the output of 44kW (they want it metric) and weighs 1165kg from the standard Ford specs.

In NCT tests they should make it so cars are checked for performance modifications, and if these are apparent they have to get power output (and maybe weight) officially measured at their own cost, in order to get their VRC changed accordingly - and if that's not done the NCT and/or VRC will be made invalid and (assuming real laws are made) they can be fined or taken off the road or whatever. There is however the problem of people removing modified parts (exhaust pipes, induction kits, etc.) before taking the car to the NCT - I dunno how to avoid that easily without the government going all Big Brother on everyone's cars.

Hobbes

barryi200 wrote:

lads this has been going on for years - just goes to show feck all has been done when this 1st cropped up....

Yep. Listened to it on the radio now. One guy on pointing out he knew about this scam for 20 years.

From what I could catch from the radio.
1. NCT for imported cars.
2. NCT to check engine size.
3. Insurance companies putting in place to verify engine size matches prior to giving out claims. Don't match = bye bye insurance.

and although they didn't mention it I'd say the revenue comissioners will also be looking into it.

mike65

One of the guests mentioned the way to deal with this - include the VIN as part of the cars registration details.

Mike.

zilog_jones

mike65 wrote:

One of the guests mentioned the way to deal with this - include the VIN as part of the cars registration details.

Surely it already is a requirement? The VIN is on my VRC anyway.

$Leon$

I was in the VRO office in santry today and they have a new sign up dated today stating that all jap import subarus and toyotas have to be presented for inspection.
I always thought all cars had to be presented but i've imported 2 in the last 12 months (civic last dec and golf today) and never been asked to show them the car.

On a side note the VRO office doesn't accept cash as of june or july this year

mike65

zilog_jones wrote:

Surely it already is a requirement? The VIN is on my VRC anyway.

You are correct, so did the guy mean that the Tax Office simply does'nt use the VIN? The interview will be on line sometime tomorrow I'd say.

Mike.

Hobbes

Should be intresting to see how people are going to wrangle out of this. I suspect they will have to end up paying any back taxes.

Cerberus

I know of one particular version of a very high powered car that in it's fastest performance spec is 1000 euro cheaper to VRT than in it's slowest spec. Loophole? Scam? No.The slowest spec has more taxable extras like air conditioning and electric windows and safety systems like abs...VRT is deigned to generate as much illegal revenue as possible. It's not concerned with road safety or what's faster than what.
And a NCT test will be totally unworkable and most likely unfair. I seriously doubt there are many NCT officials that would be able to tell the difference between either of the above cars. What's more, I doubt if there is any NCT official that could tell the difference between a 600bhp version of this car and a 300bhp version of it. But I suppose I would be in favour of a mandatory NCT inspection if it stopped the plague of turbo glanzas being insured as 1.3 starlets and evos being insured as 1.3 lancers. The differences in them cars should be easily noticable to somene with mild car knowledge.

Traumadoc

Im not sure what you are all saying - I dont think it matters what car you drive 99% of cars are able to break the speed limit- Its the way you drive the conditions or the other driver . I dont see why young men should not be allowed to drive "powerful cars" - so long as they obey the law and drive at a speed suitable to the conditions.

Seems like begrugery to me.

Mc-BigE

Traumadoc wrote:

I dont think it matters what car you drive 99% of cars are able to break the speed limit- Its the way you drive the conditions or the other driver

Agree with you there, you don't have to have a very powerful car to break the speed limit or you can be a bad driver in a good handling car

Traumadoc wrote:

I dont see why young men should not be allowed to drive "powerful cars" - so long as they obey the law and drive at a speed suitable to the conditions.

Driving a 1.6 or 2.0 car thats logbook says its 1.4 is not obeying the law

Traumadoc

Im sure the young men driving 1.3 lit galanzas would much rather be driving 2 lit suburus (probably much safer) or whatever, but they drive the 1.3 lit because the insurance is cheaper.
Perhaps if we had universal third party bodily insurance this understating engine capacity would not be a (percieved?)problem.

mike65

The Irish Insurance Ferderation should have access to the Tax Office VIN database and make it a requirement to include the cars VIN in any application
for cover.

Mike.

maidhc

Traumadoc wrote:

Perhaps if we had universal third party bodily insurance this understating engine capacity would not be a (percieved?)problem.

I don't want to pay for their insurance!

Traumadoc

but its ok if they pay for your insurance?

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/01/08/story10809.asp

maidhc

Traumadoc wrote:

but its ok if they pay for your insurance?

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/01/08/story10809.asp

I am a "young male driver", with 6 years of paying hefty insurance under my belt . My insurance is only now starting to get sensible.

I think I have contributed my bit to society and the insurance companies coffers as far as this matter is concerned.

r3nu4l

The problem is that making the insurance cheaper is allowing these boy/girl racers to drive cars that they would otherwise not be able to afford to drive if the insurance was set as high as it should be.

The problem boils down to the type of young man/woman driving these cars. Most but not all are too immature and think it's really good fun to drive narrow, country roads at 140+ kmh in the dead of night (usually at weekends) rather than thinking that it may be dangerous and that they have a responsibility to other motorists who may be around the next bend.

This scam is illegal, so that's the first problem I have with it. I have no problem with someone driving a supercharged car so long as they are already experienced drivers and they drive it sensibly and with caution. I think we all know that most of the Glanza brigade aren't called boy/girl racers for nothing!

Traumadoc

A lot of the MVAs that I see are car vs articulated or van. You often come across Articulated trucks doing 80kmph on country roads or 100kmph on our so called national routes.... completely legal.
No one seems to think articulated trucks should be limited to 50kmph on country roads... why??
but a "boy racer" is some sort of crminal that should hunted down and the car taken off him..

Seth Brundle

Traumadoc wrote:

A lot of the MVAs that I see are car vs articulated or van.

But who caused it?

Traumadoc wrote:

You often come across Articulated trucks doing 80kmph on country roads or 100kmph on our so called national routes.... completely legal.

are you 100% sure of your facts?
www.gometric.ie

Traumadoc

No I should have checked!
But is it legal for an articulated truck to travel at 80KMPH on a country lane?

paul moore

Most Jap Imports have a Speed Restrictor fitted.This gives you a top limit of 113 MPH
But i know they can be removed at a cost,big cost on some cars,
Heres one....I drive a Jap import GT4 Celica which is 2 litre Turbo,If there is any GT4 Celica in the Country that is on the log book as a 2 litre gt (uk spec non turbo) id be suprised.
This is why alot of cars go down as 1.3 instead of 1.3 turbo.My Celica has a VIN number starting with "ST205" ....now this is on paper and the VRT office will see this,There is only 2 ST205's models in the world...the Celica GT4 turbo & the Celica GT4 Turbo WRC. "They will know they are turbos"
Starlet GT Turbos now!....My old one was a 1995 model it was known on the VIN as a "EP82"....heres the thing,all the starlets in 95 are EP82's even 1 litre,1.3,and the same with the Glanza,they have the one Vin for all Engine sizes they only change when its a different body shape,the Glanza is EP91,EP91 if its a Turbo,EP91 if its a 1.3 !!
My Celica St205 = Turbo / Celica St202 just 2 litre (Different VIN's)

The online VRT is all over the place....Why is a Import Mazda mx5 1800cc cheaper to VRT than a 1600cc ???? Strange,something like €1000 in the difference!!! Same year!! (theres a tip!)

(Im probably gone off the point in all of this)

mloc123

Everyone presumes that all these cars are being insured as lower spec models which isn't the case. I'm sure there are quite a few "under insured" cars out there but not every Glanza is insured as a starlet. With the recent drop in insurance prices it is now very easy to insure high performance jap imports legally.

I hate people that advertise cars as "non turbo on the log book". I have never seen a log book that has turbo mentioned on it, if your lucky it might have the model spec on it.

It is up to the person insuring the car to declare everything, it is not up to the insurance company to check every car they insure. Ignorance is no excuse.

paul moore

Very true,like this you could have 2 turbo glanza with different power.....
ITS UP TO YOU TO TO TELL THE INSURANCE COMPANY

colm_mcm

I sold a guy a new Corolla 1.4 D-4D (90bhp), he was trading in a 98 Corolla 2.0D non turbo (73bhp AFAIK) He actually got refunded money from his insurance because he was changing to a "less powerful" car. It seems they are putting too much emphasis on engine size and not enough on actual power output.

mloc123

colm_mcm wrote:

I sold a guy a new Corolla 1.4 D-4D (90bhp), he was trading in a 98 Corolla 2.0D non turbo (73bhp AFAIK) He actually got refunded money from his insurance because he was changing to a "less powerful" car. It seems they are putting too much emphasis on engine size and not enough on actual power output.

I'd like to see an insurance system whereby you insured your car based on power, weight and drive train etc... It would make alot more sense.

deman

Just had a look at those cars in carzone. Then checked out the insurance link to Quinn Direct. See what I found.

Vehicle Requirements
▪ Registered in the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom in your own name
▪ Valued at no more than €100,000 or £75,000
▪ Not a convertible, soft top, sports utility vehicle, cabriolet or kit car
▪ No modifications/adaptations to increase top speed, performance or acceleration
▪ Not a car van or 2-seater jeep (this applies to Northern Ireland and UK residents only)

mloc123

deman wrote:

Just had a look at those cars in carzone. Then checked out the insurance link to Quinn Direct. See what I found.

Vehicle Requirements
▪ Registered in the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom in your own name
▪ Valued at no more than €100,000 or £75,000
▪ Not a convertible, soft top, sports utility vehicle, cabriolet or kit car
▪ No modifications/adaptations to increase top speed, performance or acceleration
▪ Not a car van or 2-seater jeep (this applies to Northern Ireland and UK residents only)

And? The issue isn't modified cars, its car's being under insured. Quinn will also insure modified cars providing you have an engineers report for any work carried out.

Seth Brundle

mloc123 wrote:

I'd like to see an insurance system whereby you insured your car based on power, weight and drive train etc... It would make alot more sense.

and ignore driver risk, the cars risk of theft, the car's replacment cost, the car's repair average costs...

colm_mcm

kbannon wrote:

and ignore driver risk, the cars risk of theft, the car's replacment cost, the car's repair average costs...

I think mloc123 was saying that more factors than the engines capacity should be taken into consideration, i doubt he suggested that you ignore "driver risk, the cars risk of theft, the car's replacment cost, the car's repair average costs"

Wibbs

While the debate on the other side is obvious and the blatant falsification of a cars specs is well dodgy, I do see Traumadoc's point. The smallest car out there with the singer sewing machine engine is well capable of driving at illegal speeds and causing mayhem and death on the roads. The hi powered stuff is an easier target and maybe has the bigger potential for crazyness, I grant you, but it this kind of thing does sometimes smack of seeing to be doing somethingism.

I mean, when was the last time you saw one of those tragic fatal car crashes on the news where a Subaru/Lancer Evo/Type R(delete as applicable) was involved. Nine times outa ten it's some fairly low powered family car that's upside down, framed by the mangled vowels of TV3, surrounded by Garda, bunches of flowers and media crocodile tears.

Look at it another way, there are enough Porsches out there these days that are very fast cars when compared to a Glanza* or it's ilk, yet when was the last time one of those was involved in a fatal accident?(cue smartass with police report and pictures of just such a smack:D )

Dangerous driving in a 1 litre polo or somesuch or a stripped down racing snake Skyline is still dangerous driving. It's the driver not the car that's dangerous and "loses control".**



*A car with a name far too close to the anatomical name for a knobend for my comfort.

** The day I innocently park my car at night and wake to find it now sports a tattoo, has snorted lines of coke and got my neighbours wife up the duff is the day I'll believe a car can lose control.