Very low car tax on big cars?!

Am I reading this wrong?
If I buy a 3.5 litre V8 4x4 that's 1 year old, or a Nissan Micra that's 1 year old, both have the same 140 car tax?
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tables
-- "You might show me a little more respect" complained the coed as she and her date were driving back from "Lover's Lookout". "Yeah?" asked the smirking boy, "Like by doing what?" "Well, for starters, not flying my panty hose from your radio aerial."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 02:08:59 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

The answer presumably lies in "second tax payment onwards" whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

's

e
But the second tax payment onwards (which clearly means what you pay per year from when the car is 1 year old until the end of it's life) is listed on the link. It's 140 for any petrol or diesel car. So the same for a 1 litre engined car as a 3 litre engined car.
-- The longest palindromic word is saippuakivikauppias - a Finnish word meaning a travelling salesman who sells caustic soda to the soap industry.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

's

nk

They say "list price". So is that when it was made or what it's worth now? Because a used 4x4 costing under 40 grand will be decent.
Anyway, you're taking extremes. Consider a 6000 3 door hatchback with a 1 litre engine. Consider a decent family car costing 35,000 with a big engine which clearly uses way more fuel and wears out the roads way more than the little one. They both have precisely the same tax.
Mind you, I think they should abolish the tax altogether, after all, if you use twice the petrol, you pay twice the fuel duty.
I was just surprised to see them charge loads extra in the first year, then nothing extra later on. They used to just charge per engine size.
And then there's that silly EU scheme where manufacturers must produce a certain proportion of cars under a certain size. We really don't need ALL these things, just one of them. It sticks of paperpushers with nothing to do. Sack them all.
-- Q. What did the sign on the door of the whorehouse say? A. Beat it - we're closed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
James Wilkinson Sword explained on 31/03/2018 :

About 6 weeks ago I bought a 63-plate Lexus RX450h which has a 3.5 litre V6 engine for almost £25k. The road tax is £140 but I thought that was because it's a hybrid. Are you saying that ANY 3.5 litre car is now £140?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

's 1

t
According to that link, any car manufactured after Spring 2017 is, yes. You pay a huge (up to 2 grand) tax in the first year, but it's 140 after that.
Had you bought a non-hybrid version of your car on a 63 plate, you'd be paying from 0-535 quid a year depending on emissions. There's only 10 off for being a hybrid, anything else you get off it is due to you using less fuel (which I assume is directly related to CO2 emissions - why don't they just say "fuel consumption"? Everybody knows what the mpg of their car is, but the CO2 it gives out? WTF?)
That does make me laugh this hybrid bullshit, you save fuck all fuel with those. It's been shown that a diesel VW Polo uses less fuel than a hybrid Toyota Prius. Pointless waste of Lithium. ALL electric cars, fine, but hybrids are pointless.
-- I have the world's oldest typewriter - it prints in pencil
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 31/03/18 16:37, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

A diesel Polo will emit far more toxic material. Besides, miles per gallon is the wrong measure when comparing petrol and diesel because they have different energy densities. Miles per kilogram is the proper comparison.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 08:59:25 +0100

But somewhat less CO2.

Thats true, but these days its CO2 emissions matter and diesels emit less CO2 than petrols for a given amount of power generated. Quite why is something a chemist would have to answer. You'd think given that diesel fuel has a higher percentage carbon content than petrol it would be the other way around.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But greenies don't have a clue. CO2 = global warming apparently, despite the ridiculous amount of snow the UK just had.
--
The average dishcloth contains 3 million times as many bacteria as the average toilet seat.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/04/18 11:31, snipped-for-privacy@cylonHQ.com wrote:

The conventional reason is that compression ratio gives a better conversion efficiency from fuel energy to mechanical energy.

Diesel does have a higher percentage of carbon (relative to hydrogen) and has a higher specific gravity. So even if the two engines had the same conversion efficiency, the diesel would consume a lower volume but a greater weight.
It would be good to know the correct values but take your pick from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density diesel 48.0MJ/kg 35.8MJ/l petrol 46.4MJ/kg 34.2MJ/l
https://neutrium.net/properties/specific-energy-and-energy-density-of-fuels/ diesel 44.8MJ/kg 37.2MJ/l sg 0.830kg/l petrol 47.3MJ/kg 33.9MJ/l sg 0.776kg/l
https://arewetoast.com/energy-content-of-selected-fuels.html diesel 44.8MJ/kg 38.7MJ/l petrol 43.5MJ/kg 34.6MJ/l
From first principles, wiki says graphite produces 32.7MJ/kg, hydrogen 120MJ/kg, hence petrol at 96:18 (relative weights of C & H) is 46.5MJ/kg.
Diesel centres around C15 which is 180:32, giving 45.9MJ/kg.
Shrug. No wonder politicians don't know how to tax them. But it should be clear that part of the reason petrol engines need a bigger tank is an innocent difference in the fuel.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

This may be interesting from the scientific point of view - and especially when weight is just as an important factor as volume (which it is, say, for airborne transport). However, for road transport, so far we pay only for volume.
--
Ian

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/04/18 08:42, Ian Jackson wrote:

We pay...
We pay the oil companies for their costs in delivering the stuff to us: their prices adjust the whole time and petrol is normally cheaper - by volume. So their prices probably are a reasonable reflection of the technical difference. It happens that mpg is always going to be simpler and more convenient than miles per unit of fluctuating currency but it still doesn't make mpg a good comparison.
But the government puts a tax on it. Most governments deliberately put more tax on petrol than diesel, which inevitably improves diesel value for money.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/04/2018 10:27, TMS320 wrote:

Miles or km per MJ is probably the most scientific for comparison(or even MJ per mile/km), but with the coming of electric vehicles will probably stick with miles per kWh.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, 31 March 2018 16:15:49 UTC+1, Pete Zahut wrote:

1

ught

If you get a "heritage vehicle" road tax is zero.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

at's 1

ht

But making the bloody thing start costs more than the tax you save.
-- Did you know that dolphins are so intelligent that within only a few weeks of captivity, they can train humans to stand at the edge of the pool and throw them fish?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

Prick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:49:06 +0100

In the short term yes, but NOx disappears from the atmosphere in a few hours to a few days and particulates settle into the ground. If all traffic stopped and factories and power stations shut down then the air over britain would be pristine within days.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/04/18 10:01, snipped-for-privacy@cylonHQ.com wrote:

Whoosh.
So what 'harm' does CO2 do then?
Giant triffids stalking the streets?
--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:13:23 +0100

Learn some basic physics then get back to us.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/04/18 10:17, snipped-for-privacy@cylonHQ.com wrote:

Oh dear. The basic physics says that CO2 has almost no effect on climate. But a great effect on plant life.
You have fallen for the 'feedback' con haven't you?
Go and learn some basic physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.