Just shows what a joke this new supoosed 'Green' tax system is. You can run virtually whatever your pocket can afford provided it was made prior to 2000 for the same money as a 2005 1.9 TD VW Golf. Had a play with the Parkers calculator and I can run a 1989 Porsche 911 for the same tax. How is that supposed to be better for the environment?

My 17 year old Pajero would appear to be less taxable [and therefore by default is 'greener'] than a brand new one with a modern DiD engine?

If this goes through then prices of 'nearly new' second hand cars are going to drop through the floor and the price of pre-2000 models are going to go UP!

Noticed on telly last night the footage of Gordon Broon lying to Parliament. Lets see him get out of that...... "Taxi for Mr Brown !"

I've had 2 PD100s - the newer (AXR engine code) is 129g/km, but the older (ATD) was higher - I think it might have been 135.

These were both estates which may be different to a hatch but it seems it does make a difference whether it's an old PD100 or a new PD100...

Aha! The source I saw didn't split out the engines like that. Mine's ATD, so £110 next year. Cool. Thanks

I always wanted Road Tax to be included in the tax on petrol. Heavy road users and uneconomical cars pay more tax. Simple. Economical drivers, even those with apparently uneconomical cars will pay less if they adapt their driving style. Mind you there is so much tax on petrol now, I prefer the current system.:(

my point exactly like the french have, car has to have a sticker once a year to show its taxed and insured and mot'd and all tax is on the fuel. maybe road tax could be incorporated with the insurers so you can only get them both at the same time and cancel both and the same time to stop some of these illegally driven cars.

Every car is tested for CO2 individually, so all the V5s could well be totally different - mine is 134g which I'm quite OK with.

Brown has lied to parliament, and MPs voted on that.

So technically we, and the house of commons, should be calling for a re-vote.

just got my 2006 vrs fabia, so £120 quid a year. last car was a 1.5 dci clio which was 35 quid a year....bugger. however, the clio was **** and not a patch on the skoda.

just got my 2006 vrs fabia, so £120 quid a year. last car was a 1.5 dci clio which was 35 quid a year....bugger. however, the clio was **** and not a patch on the skoda.

chalk and cheese. Just take pleasure from the fact it will be £110 in the 2009/2010 tax year.

just got my 2006 vrs fabia, so £120 quid a year. last car was a 1.5 dci clio which was 35 quid a year....bugger. however, the clio was **** and not a patch on the skoda.

and welcome to my fabia nutter social group:thumbup:

oh and briskoda:thumbup:

Just seen this on parkers.co.uk!

Fabia VRS raod tax for 2008 -2009

Date of Registration 6 Months 12 Months Band CO2 (g/km)

28 Jul 2003 – 1 Sep 2004 £60.50 £110.00 E 138

1 Sep 2004 – 1 Jan 2007 £66.00 £120.00 F 143-146

1 Jan 2007 – 31 Mar 2007 £60.50 £110.00 E 140

I bought my car in summer 2006... I know it's only £10 on the year but how unfiar is it that I have to pay that much more than the person who bought the newer and older versions?

The car I bought is not what it said on the tin when I bought it.... 138g/km is what I expected not 143-146!

I would have expected the euro 4 compliant cars to be more economical? whats the point of the compliancy if it's going to be more polluting? maybe Euro 4 applies to particals?

Well annoyed!

If changing the engine doesn't change your official taxation. Y doesn't even buy a 1.4 tdci /hdi thingy that costs £35 road tax and then stick a fire breather in it. Problem solved.

I've commented on that before Chris, that they should have left the setup alone from the original release of the vRS, with EuroIII compliancy and the longer 6th gear, if it's less polluting!

I'm pleased I've got the longer 6th gear; it's a cruising gear anyway - if you want to do much in the way of acceleration, change down

Sorry, doesn't help you case much, but I agree - it's daft :confused:

Steve

I've commented on that before Chris, that they should have left the setup alone from the original release of the vRS, with EuroIII compliancy and the longer 6th gear, if it's less polluting!

I'm pleased I've got the longer 6th gear; it's a cruising gear anyway - if you want to do much in the way of acceleration, change down

Sorry, doesn't help you case much, but I agree - it's daft :confused:

Steve

Crazy eh!

Infact it's just a crazy world we live in. I expected things to evolve and change for good reaons. Yet multinational companies don't see things this way. They evolve for the goodness of the cash flow not the consumer. the consumer always loses.

rant over

Although mine aint a Vrs just paid my for 6 months and it came to £90

Crazy eh!

Infact it's just a crazy world we live in. I expected things to evolve and change for good reaons. Yet multinational companies don't see things this way. They evolve for the goodness of the cash flow not the consumer. the consumer always loses.

rant over

It does raise a wry smile though, that the newer cars suffer the stutter and all this fuss over striving to reach EuroIV compliance, with an engine that clearly wasn't designed for it. And then it goes and put out more CO2

Which makes me think - what exactly is in the compliance standards, if they can get away with more emissions??!

Steve