Emissions are affected by engine, vehicle weight, aerodynamics and rolling resistance - and maybe other factors.

If you load a vehicle with options then you generally increase the weight.

Mercedes quote different emissions for different wheels - certainly for the R-class and possibly for other vehicles. This may be due to rolling resistance or aerodynamics (wider wheels increase frontal area).

I think Audi add up the weight of your options to determine emissions of the finished vehicle. Pretty sure they did with the old (lightweight) A2.

Manufacturers are under pressure to reduce the average emissions of the cars they produce.

The whole business of a vehicle's emission rating being determined when it is produced and then subsequently never changed is a bit ridiculous - but any other system would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

No modifications made after the car is produced (or first registered or whenever the determining time may be) will affect its official emissions level.So people can buy a car and modify it - chip the engine, fit wider wheels or spoilers or body kits. People can carry bikes on the roof, or a roofbox or tow a caravan everywhere they go. None of this will affect their road tax. My personal feeling is that the only fair way to tax emissions is to tax fuel.

I think it is silly of Skoda UK to start restricting combinations of options (reducing consumer choice) to attempt to keep emissions down. People should be free to chose what they like and if necessary pay extra tax every year.

As Skoda UK are not working that way people who really want both will just have to buy the car with the sunroof and then pay the dealer a small fortune to retrofit the spare wheel. At least that way you can get whatever size and style of wheel and tyre you want, instead of the controversial undersized "full-sized" spare.

Then every year when they pay their road tax they can feel that the exchequer is making a contribution towards the cost of their spare wheel.

My personal feeling is that the only fair way to tax emissions is to tax fuel.

Even as a high mileage driver who pays for his own fuel, I have to reluctantly agree with that.

I think Audi add up the weight of your options to determine emissions of the finished vehicle. Pretty sure they did with the old (lightweight) A2.

Yes, they still do. It is clearly stated in Audi brochures. The base Co2 figures are for the standard car and this increases depending on your selected options.

My personal feeling is that the only fair way to tax emissions is to tax fuel.

They already do, and how Just a shame they don't spend enough of it on repairing and resurfacing our shocking roads. Better solution would be for us all to have a carbon limit beyond which tax is levied at a higher level; then those without kiddywinks, animals, those who don't fly or eat meat would be able to drive plenty without the guilt.

BMW add up various options like 3 or 5 door and so forth then calculate the CO2 from that the 5 door has a higher CO2 than the 3 . I guess that Skoda has calculated the weight and anything over a certain amount will push up to the next tax band. Perhaps they as a manufacturer get penalised in some way. I know that vehicle models have an average fuel consumption and CO2 calculated for the range for some reason. If it was for the want of staying below a tax band then it would be cheaper in the long run to add some extras like spare wheel ones self. If done by the manufacturer it pushes the tax up but if one does it ones self then no additional tax need be paid. I think that different tax bands is crazy one pays over again when we put the fuel in the tank anyway, it is a bit like double jeopardy except one is found guilty on both occasions.

BMW add up various options like 3 or 5 door and so forth then calculate the CO2 from that the 5 door has a higher CO2 than the 3 . I guess that Skoda has calculated the weight and anything over a certain amount will push up to the next tax band. Perhaps they as a manufacturer get penalised in some way. I know that vehicle models have an average fuel consumption and CO2 calculated for the range for some reason. If it was for the want of staying below a tax band then it would be cheaper in the long run to add some extras like spare wheel ones self. If done by the manufacturer it pushes the tax up but if one does it ones self then no additional tax need be paid. I think that different tax bands is crazy one pays over again when we put the fuel in the tank anyway, it is a bit like double jeopardy except one is found guilty on both occasions.

Future European legislation will penalise manufacturers with a fine for each gram of Co2 over (if memory serves me correctly) 140g/km as an average for the range. Whether this takes into account additional Co2 generated from customer options rather than standard spec cars I do not know. Skoda's action suggests that this is the case.

I think metallic paint is probably heavier than the pure colours like Tibetan White and therefore should be taxed accordingly....

I think metallic paint is probably heavier than the pure colours like Tibetan White and therefore should be taxed accordingly....

Hi aero,

Tibetan White and Pacific are the only no cost options in Germany, you bizarrely have to pay extra :wonder: for my 'GPO' colour scheme

Regards,

TP

Hi aero,

Tibetan White and Pacific are the only no cost options in Germany, you bizarrely have to pay extra for my 'GPO' colour scheme

Regards,

TP

It is the same with VW. Tornado Red is an extra cost colour in Germany.