Gormley tax plans in Sunday Times

testicle

MOH wrote: »

Not attacking your post, but curious: what did people do 15/20 years ago when they had large families but didn't have MPVs?

5 or 6 kids in the back of a fiesta was a regular sight.

E92

Thanks be to Christ we have people talking sense.

Fair dues to Óisín Coughlan. He really knows what he's talking about. I never though I'd be agreeing with a greenie, but I couldn't fault anything he said. In fact I'd go so far as to say that I was not only shocked to hear what he said but delighted to hear what he said.

The SIMI guy isn't interested in saving the planet, rather in making the SIMI money. But he was so right about all the cars that have engines which are simply too small for the size and weight of the car being bought here.

Buying new cars isn't a very enviornmentally friendly thing to do at all. It is better to keep oldcars going for as long as you can.

Unfortunately in this country any car thats more than 3 years is stone age.

Anyone who thinks a 1.6 or bigger is a gas guzzler is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Ever been to America? 5.0 and 6.0 litre engines are far from uncommon. Loads of V8s as well. I'm reliably informed that the Aussies love V8s of 4 litre and over as well.

Even in the continent 6 cylinder cars are ten a penny. Whuile here every god damm car has the smallest possible engine for that type of car possible and only 4 cylinders.

Spit62500

what_car wrote: »

the book figures for the new civic hybrid are
(l/100km) Combined 4.6 which is 61mpg.. book figure.. it is highly unlikely for a car to exceed the stated mpg in the brochure..

It depends on how you drive and where you drive. My daily commute takes me over 50 miles (each way) on mostly reasonably big minor roads. I have a Corolla 1.4 D4D which officially averages 58 MPG (urban and extra-urban combined). As my driving is extra-urban I can easily achieve 65 mpg (averaged over 53 miles from a cold start) while driving where possible at the 80 kmh speed limit. I don't floor it up hills and I keep a light right foot but I minimise my journey times for sanity's sake. I can achieve 70 mpg average over the same route if I work at it. Any more would involve a driving style that's anti-social for other road users.

peasant

E92 wrote: »

Buying new cars isn't a very enviornmentally friendly thing to do at all. It is better to keep oldcars going for as long as you can.

hear, hear ...

But I am yet to see any motoring related "green" initiative (in ANY country, never mind this one) that actually takes the whole life cycle of a vehicle into account.

Golferx

E92 wrote: »

Buying new cars isn't a very enviornmentally friendly thing to do at all. It is better to keep oldcars going for as long as you can.

peasant wrote: »

hear, hear ...

But I am yet to see any motoring related "green" initiative (in ANY country, never mind this one) that actually takes the whole life cycle of a vehicle into account.

Actually, if you google it you'll find only about 6% to 8% of the pollution in a car's life cycle occurs during the manufacture of the vehicle.

I though, would agree, it's much better to keep an older vehicle on the road, but, please, please can we some day get away from the cubic capacity of a car being used to ascertain it's environmental effect?

E92

what car wrote:

the book figures for the new civic hybrid are
(l/100km) Combined 4.6 which is 61mpg.. book figure.. it is highly unlikely for a car to exceed the stated mpg in the brochure..

Well adverts.ie says the car is sold. A little googling reveals that the car JHMEG's wife has/had actually averages 57.7 mpg.
And more digging revelas that the said Civic IMA does 47.1 mpg in town, and 65.7 mpg out of town.

As for the notion of a car exceeding its stated mpg figure, its time ye were all informed about how the tests are actually conducted.

What they actually do is measure the car's CO2 emissions, and then convert these to l/100 km.

Urban cycle is where the car is started from cold, driven for 2.5 miles(4 km), max speed 50 km/h(31 mph), average speed 19 km/h(12 mph), all cars must have driven 1,900 miles before the test is conducted, ambient temperature 20-30 degrees, test duration is 13 mins.

Extra Urban cycle is conducted immediately after the Urban cycle, max speed 120 km/h(75 mph), average speed 63 km/h(39 mph), 4.3 miles(7 km), test duration 6 mins 40 seconds.

Combined the weighted mean of the 2(done in km and l/100 km, you don't get the right figure using mls and mpg), to take account of the greater distance travelled in the extra urban cycle.

Here is a graph of the speeds actually obtained during the tests: (from http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/information/fuel-consumption-testing-scheme.asp)

E92

Golferx wrote: »

Actually, if you google it you'll find only about 6% to 8% of the pollution in a car's life cycle occurs during the manufacture of the vehicle.

I though, would agree, it's much better to keep an older vehicle on the road, but, please, please can we some day get away from the cubic capacity of a car being used to ascertain it's environmental effect?

What about scrapping it? Is there no pollution when scrapping it:rolleyes::D?

6% to 8% is a sweeping statement, if ever there was. Its a huge generalisation. What if you only drive 50,000 miles and by that stage the car is 20 years old?

Hardly fair to compare it with a car that does 300,000 miles in it's lifetime. Or to compare it with someone who drives it around town all the time and the next person who has the exact same car drives it on Motorways all the time(since at 5 mph you pollute twice as much as you do at 80 mph).

And no doubt cars which are lighter are cheaper and more enviornmentally friendly to build. I actually believe that we should be told about the enviornmental impact of buying a new car. Because nobody seems to know(and more important than that is that we can't find out, as manufacturers are not obliged to tell us either).

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

Well adverts.ie says the car is sold.

Happens automatically after 15 days on adverts. But as I said earlier on this thread I wasn't selling it (and didn't, despite being offered more than she paid for it), just trying to find out how much it was worth, as I reckoned the Revenue under valued it.

E92 wrote: »

A little googling reveals that the car JHMEG's wife has/had actually averages

FFS, I told you what my wife's car averages! It's not some motoring hack's test car, that was test driven for a morning.

Ice_Box

E92 wrote: »

Buying new cars isn't a very enviornmentally friendly thing to do at all. It is better to keep oldcars going for as long as you can.

Yes, its better to recycle a whole car then have a new one made. But then again most cars are made in countries that use nuclear power or green energy. But don't forget to take safety into account. New cars are far safer then 5 year old cars for example. Keeping your children alive should not be taxed as a luxury. Air bags should not have 21% VAT plus 30% VRT.

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

Happens automatically after 15 days on adverts.

OK, didn't know that.

JHMEG wrote:

FFS, I told you what my wife's car averages!

Why are moaning about what I said? You're mixing me up with what what car said. He said
"i seriously doubt an 03 civic hybrid does 70mpg. its quite easily to get the mpg calculator to read high like that.. reset the computer and drive easy for a new miles, the reading goes up, then take the pic...", not me.

Go back to pages 6 and 7 on this thread. You'll see I wasn't bemoaning the IMA Civic at all.

JHMEG wrote:

It's not some motoring hack's test car, that was test driven for a morning

If you look at my links in post Nr 157 you'll find they were the Official EU mpg ones for the Civic IMA your wife has.

Sam Kade

micmclo wrote: »

"Clearly it makes sense to have a motor tax that works on the principle that the polluter pays"

I don't think anyone can argue with that.
Of course some will post that they own a 2.0l car and resent high tax as they rarely use it, maybe only at weekends.
In fairness, you knew about motor tax when you bought it.

Fair enough the polluter pays, who does he pay? the government what does the government do with the polluters money? he uses it to put fuel in his private jet and fuel for his high powered merc's.

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

Why are moaning about what I said?

My apologies.. thought it was another one of those "your car doesn't do that because this site says so" rants. Unfortunately the tone of someone's voice doesn't carry on the internet, and I am a little fed up of all the "experts" on this forum who know more about hybrids that I do despite the fact that most have never driven one, let alone own one.

E92 wrote: »

If you look at my links in post Nr 157 you'll find they were the Official EU mpg ones for the Civic IMA your wife has

I'm not sure what you meant by posting the details of the test? Is it to point out that a short 20 minute test is a little over simplistic?

what_car

Spit62500 wrote: »

It depends on how you drive and where you drive. My daily commute takes me over 50 miles (each way) on mostly reasonably big minor roads. I have a Corolla 1.4 D4D which officially averages 58 MPG (urban and extra-urban combined). As my driving is extra-urban I can easily achieve 65 mpg (averaged over 53 miles from a cold start) while driving where possible at the 80 kmh speed limit. I don't floor it up hills and I keep a light right foot but I minimise my journey times for sanity's sake. I can achieve 70 mpg average over the same route if I work at it. Any more would involve a driving style that's anti-social for other road users.

i agree the 1.4 d4d is a great engine (1364cc). i bought one when they were first launched, i was amazed at a 1.4 diesel, so i bought one. a terra saloon corolla one of the first ones sold here. i could get 55 mpg round town, driving easy, or 60-65 on motorway, at about 55-60mph. on average i got about 1050 km from a full tank of diesel, about €47 euros of diesel..

fantastic economy, and not too bad on power too for the size of the car.
i see loads of the corolla d4d on the roads now, and auris. also..

i sold the car private sale, and it sold quick, and got excellent money for it.
i would highly recommend one to anyone.

what would be nice is if the diesel 1.4 corolla was available in estate form,
im sure colm_mcm could inform us

what_car

JHMEG wrote: »

My apologies.. thought it was another one of those "your car doesn't do that because this site says so" rants. Unfortunately the tone of someone's voice doesn't carry on the internet, and I am a little fed up of all the "experts" on this forum who know more about hybrids that I do despite the fact that most have never driven one, let alone own one.


I'm not sure what you meant by posting the details of the test? Is it to point out that a short 20 minute test is a little over simplistic?

in my experience from buying many new cars, cars dont normally meet buyers expectations in terms of stated mpg. the exception is my current car, book figures state combined 33.5mpg for the auto, im getting 31mpg close enough.

i have driven the toyota hybrid a good few times, and at best i could get high 40's mpg. the engine, did seem to be very noisey when it was going.. i will have a chance to drive the civic hybrid at the weekend and ill give it a go. just because you own a hybrid doesent make you an expert,:D but if you say you get 70 mpg, well fair enuf, im just a bit surprised..

Sam Kade

Golferx wrote: »

Well, the first Espace came out in 1984, but was a very small seller.


People shoved their children into the back of whatever they had, without any child restraints of any kind. The baby of the family was usually sat on Mam's lap in the front of the car, being the first airbag. It wasn't uncommon to see up to 6 or 7 of a family crammed into a VW Beetle, for example.

Also it wasn't uncommon to see three abreast in the front of many cars, again completely without the use of safety restraints.

For those who could afford it the predecessor of the VW Caravelle was the vehicle of choice, with a few in the Nissan Serena or a Transit minibus.


Times have changed, people are wiser, and safety is much more a focus that it was in those days. Unfortunately the powers that be don't assist in ensuring people have safe transport. Look at the tax on safety features in cars? Up to 100% tax. Ridiculous.

Very good point. I was working with an agri contractor in 1985 during the silage season 9 of us came home one night in a 79 opel kadet saloon, there was himself and his wife and two children in front three in the back seat and two of us in the boot. I wouldn't like to try that today.

zilog_jones

Also, being thrown about in the back of a van was an everyday occurrance as a child of the '80s/early '90s. I'm sure it still happens these days too, but a lot of people have more money and sense now.

I remember when I started school (1990), the only people who had a people carrier (fugly Nissan Prarie) were the parents of the boy in a wheelchair.

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

My apologies.. thought it was another one of those "your car doesn't do that because this site says so" rants. Unfortunately the tone of someone's voice doesn't carry on the internet

Fair enough. As for the tone of voice thing, I know the feeling. Sometimes my words are misinterpreted(see the "Merc invents tech...thats why they're copying BMW" thread) where people though I was having arant when all I wanted to do was point out that Merc were making a fuss about something that is standard on all the most popular BMWs.

I know I am guilty of misintrepreting people too.

JHMEG wrote: »

I am a little fed up of all the "experts" on this forum who know more about hybrids that I do despite the fact that most have never driven one, let alone own one.

While as you know I'm no fan of them and we've debated the meriots of them to the ends of the earth, I see where you are coming from. While you may or may not agree with some(perhaps all:D?) of what I say not just about hybrids but about all things motoring related, the one thing you can't say is that by and large I don't say oh such and such a thing is sh1te or its not what it's made out to be and leave it at that. I notice that some people who talk about hybrids say oh a diesel will do better on mpg, and leave it at that, I will usually provide links to back up what I'm saying. I won't promise it, but I will always try to do so. I always try where possible to provide some sort of statistical evidence to show where I'm getting my statements from. And if I don't, I will most of the time have mentioned it before in another thread.

JHMEG wrote: »

Is it to point out that a short 20 minute test is a little over simplistic?

Well yes, and to show that its not always relevant to what really happens in reality. Thats not to say its over optimistic or under optimisitic, but simply to point out that it is a very simplified picture. There are loads of factors to take into account for mpg, I not going to mention them because I know you know all that kinda stuff already.

The EU tests are useful as a comparison tool, but thats all they are, I mean its hardly beyond the bounds of possibility that car makers actually set up the gear ratios etc to optimise fuel economy(I'm sure they're all at it) for those tests but actually make the car poorer in reality.

As for your wifes car's mpg, I do accept that what your wife's car gets is what you say it is. I've no proof to show you're right or wrong, but if I won't accept what your saying(despite having a pic to demonstrate that at the very least it can be done) or if you delibaretly set up the car so that it would give the mpg in your sig, it doesn't say a lot about the type of people either of us are.

I presume that everyone like me posts things that they know to be true/actually reflect what they are thinking.

beerbaron

See Below:

Dear ******

Thank you for your email. Minister Gormley has asked me to get back to you on this issue.

At the weekend, the Minister signalled his intention to raise Motor Tax from next year. At present Motor Tax is already delineated along the lines of engine size.

Currently, officials in this department are looking at several options which are available to the Minister. An alternative of an emissions-based system will be put in place in time. This will focus the attention on the impact of carbon emissions on our environment.

However, I have every confidence that this issue, once finalised, will have been dealt with in the most equitable manner possible.

I hope that this information is of some use to you but should you have any further queries on this or any other matter, please feel free to contact me.

Kind regards,


Diarmuid Hanifin
Personal Advisor to John Gormley T.D.
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

C_Breeze

Not really up to date on this issue but tax is Definitely going to rise, correct? .. or will the method of taxing just be modified to emmision based as opposed to cc (although i cant see it reducing costs of tax for anyone)

- Does anybody have any idea by how much it would rise? ... if im paying €511 per year , do you think it will reach over €600? As in will it be a minor or significant increase?

ambro25

beerbaron wrote: »

See Below:

Dear ******

Thank you for your email. Minister Gormley has asked me to get back to you on this issue.

At the weekend, the Minister signalled his intention to raise Motor Tax from next year. At present Motor Tax is already delineated along the lines of engine size.

Currently, officials in this department are looking at several options which are available to the Minister. An alternative of an emissions-based system will be put in place in time. This will focus the attention on the impact of carbon emissions on our environment.

However, I have every confidence that this issue, once finalised, will have been dealt with in the most equitable manner possible.

I hope that this information is of some use to you but should you have any further queries on this or any other matter, please feel free to contact me.

Kind regards,


Diarmuid Hanifin
Personal Advisor to John Gormley T.D.
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

(i) We'll increase revenue derived from taxing motor cars from next year.

(ii) We'll swap the engine size basis for an engine emissions basis to keep up with the times.

See, how easy this could be - 2 lines intead of 5 paragraphs

galwaytt

so, the officials come up with the policy, and the minister gets to pick whatever they put on the table.

Right, remind me so what the hell elections are for? The minister should go for 'polluter pays', and tell the officials to draw up the legislation.

what_car

JHMEG wrote: »

My Accord was a 1998 2.0 Coupe, automatic, about 27mpg around town, 31mpg on a run. Civic is a VTI, 32mpg around town, about 38mpg on a run. Civic therefore uses about 20% to 25% less fuel. In addition the Accord costed almost 50% more than the Civic to tax (€599 vs €414)

Well now you've spoken (sort of) to someone who has a Civic IMA in the family. 68 to 74mpg on a run, 52 to 58mpg around town.

here are my mpg images JHMEG... not bad for a 2L auto!
:D

Tea drinker

micmclo wrote: »

"Clearly it makes sense to have a motor tax that works on the principle that the polluter pays"

I don't think anyone can argue with that.

Tea drinker puts hand up:
I can I can!! Shorely polluter pays would work better at the d feckin petrol or diesel or gas pump????
No - the point is the take money at the pump AND the tax till, and anywhere else they can get it. These guys will shaft us more than michael douglas on viagra.

WHITE_P

The current government proposals to increase road tax on vehicles with an engine capacity of 1.6 litres and over is absolutely disgraceful. The people who will be hurt most by this is the middle income family car owner.
Any family with three or more children under 150cms and less than 36 kilograms require a large family car or an MPV if they want to comply with current Road traffic laws, when all travelling together. Yet there are very few sub 1.6 litre cars with sufficient space to facilitate three child / booster seats on the back seat. While those privileged enough to be able to afford large expensive cars and 4x4's will be little inconvenienced by the extra cost of the road tax. If the minister were to research vehicle emissions he would find that there are many sub 1.6 litre cars that emit much more CO2 than most 2.0 litre diesels, never mind the fact that diesels are more economical. I think a tax rating based solely on the CO2 output from a vehicle would be far more acceptable. However if this government has its way we will have to pay for our CO2 output on top of the extortionate road tax we already pay. Enough is enough this policy has to be stopped !!!.

Matt Simis

According the radio this morning (so Im told), it was announced that the new Tax's will be on C02 exclusively, not Engine Size.

Tipsy Mac

Matt Simis wrote: »

According the radio this morning (so Im told), it was announced that the new Tax's will be on C02 exclusively, not Engine Size.

Incorrect, they have no figures for older vehicles so they will just tax everyone the same regardless if one 1.6 car does 29mpg and the other does 55mpg. Perhaps with the backlash they are facing from all areas recenty they might be wise and hold off on this until next years budget.

Matt Simis

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

Incorrect, they have no figures for older vehicles so they will just tax everyone the same regardless if one 1.6 car does 29mpg and the other does 55mpg. Perhaps with the backlash they are facing from all areas recenty they might be wise and hold off on this until next years budget.

Not that Im disbelieving you, but what are you basing that on?

Golferx

Backlash? FF are the party of liars, cheats and conmen (and women). Their arrogance makes them immune to backlashes. Look at Dempsey, Cullen, Roche, well any of them, they don't give a flying f*** about anyone. Look at that lying thieving ginnet of a Taoiseach?

Five years ago FF made loads of promises to the electorate then reneged on everything once back in power. Only an idiot would have believed a single word from them pre-election and anyone who voted for them deserves all the shafting they are going to get.

Unfortunately those of us intelligent enough to vote against them have to pay the price for others' stupidity.


w.r.t Car Tax? This is a SOP to the Greens, nothing more, nothing less. Engine size is about as useful a barometer for them to calculate their penalties, they don't seem to have the brain power to do it properly.


As for all the tree-huggers wanting rid of the big cars? Are they perfectly willing to make up any shortfall in VRT as a result of their actions? They will have to.

Marcus.Aurelius

SO it looks like we will be taxed on our emissions whether we drive 100k miles a year or 1k miles a year. F**king morons.

C_Breeze

maoleary wrote: »

SO it looks like we will be taxed on our emissions whether we drive 100k miles a year or 1k miles a year. F**king morons.

Any idea when we find out what the rates are and when it comes into effect!?