MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Sorry I know there's already a big thread on this, but this is pretty OT.
I suspected as much, but VW have now admitted that all their diesels are a bit fibby when it comes to Nitrogen emissions, they only use a few variations of engine across all their brands so I assumed they'd be equally effected. Which includes my Seat.
There will no doubt be calls for them to do something about it, one suggestion is that VAG may decide to spin this as a 'fault' and call in all their cars for a recall to 'fix' it.
One of the reasons I liked my car when I test drove it was the fact that it doesn't have the sort of 'flat spots' that other diesels have - Hyundai for example - you drive, the engine speed reaches the point that the tests are taken and - as if by magic the engine turns down the wick - this is 'legal' because well it's how the engine works and the fact that it's surprisingly clean at the point where they test it is pure luck (and the fact they're also surprisingly efficient at the road speed they test also is equally 'lucky')
So, environmentally conscious STW - if you have a VAG diesel, and they call it in to be 'fixed' would you do it? Bearing in mind that the 'fix' might make it more lumpy to drive if they follow the route the other makers have gone down, slower over-all if they decide to be whiter than white given the size of the scandal or both but knowing it will produce less Nitrogen - or would you leave it as it is?
What if the govt decides to change taxation class of your car if you don;t have it done?
wwaswas - MemberWhat if the govt decides to change taxation class of your car if you don;t have it done?
It's certainly a consideration - I don't think it would happen, taxation in the EU at least is based on Co2 emissions, the cars have to pass tests for Nitrogen, but it doesn't effect taxation, as I understand it, it's a pass/fail thing.
It might effect people driving into London though!
Depends what are they going to fix.
I don't think they've admitted the actual defeat kicks in during EU tests. Just the defeat is present in the software.
It would start getting expensive for VW if their cars starte getting re-banded, or failing MOTs.
I'd assume they'd just re-certify them all, so you thought you had a Euro VI car but you only have a Euro V car.
But remember - this software is there to recognise when it's doing the US test, and change its behaviour. It may not even be triggered by the EU one.
I doubt there'll be much of a second hand market for unfixed VAG diesels so you're probably stuck with it if you don't get it fixed
+ if you don't get it fixed then you know you're causing massive environmental damage...
Depending on age, any chance of getting them to take it back under consumer rights of some kind, get your money back (or most of it) and buy something else?
Interesting point about the US test v the EU test, as I understand it the EU is more focused on Co2 - hence why Diesels are so popular in Europe.
In the US and Asia they're more focused on Nitrogen and other gasses, so they tend to follow the hybrid route, and it's why the US can still produce huge engines that pass emissions tests that small diesels can't.
I guess VAG were pretty desperate to get their diesel technology into the US, I'd bet they really pushed the environmental side too - diesel to the Yanks is truck fuel. Although there a movement at the moment to put huge Cummings diesels into hotrod trucks and things that put out huge power and massive plumes of soot.
[i]Bozena Michalowska-Howell, part of the consumer law and product safety group at Leigh Day, wrote in the letter: “While we welcome the news that repairs will be undertaken to upgrade the affected cars to comply with EU nitrogen dioxide emission standards, such repairs may result in reduced fuel efficiency and increased CO2 emissions which in turn may impact upon the vehicle excise duty payable and other associated costs. [/i]
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/30/vw-emissions-scandal-12m-uk-cars-affected ]http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/30/vw-emissions-scandal-12m-uk-cars-affected[/url]
Can the rest of us who've had to breathe all this extra crap make a claim?
brooess - MemberI doubt there'll be much of a second hand market for unfixed VAG diesels so you're probably stuck with it if you don't get it fixed
or...
people will discover that 'fixed' VAG diesels drive like turd, so the 2nd hand market will favour 'un-fixed' examples.
maybe.
Can the rest of us who've had to breathe all this extra crap make a claim?
Given the Government has been dragging it's feet for years over air pollution in the UK, I can't think much will happen. They even lobbied the EU to reduce the standards for the emission tests (along with France and Germany), so suddenly pouring scorn on VW is very two faced!
Will be interesting to see what the owner class action law suits achieve...
wwaswas - MemberCan the rest of us who've had to breathe all this extra crap make a claim?
I don't think that would be successful in the UK (you could only claim for consequential loss, so if you had emphysema and could categorically prove it was caused by NoX then go for it). But I can see a class action lawsuit springing up in the states, not sure how successful it would be though.
To put a different spin on it -
I'm a company car driver, and I have a '14 plate Passat 2.0 Bluemotion diesel.
I chose this car based partly on the tax liability, which is calculated in part by the vehicles emissions level.
I'm going to be livid if it gets re-banded and my tax goes up.
I'm going to be livid if it gets re-banded and my tax goes up.
That would be a pretty clear cut case for compensation from VW...
I guess VAG were pretty desperate to get their diesel technology into the US, I'd bet they really pushed the environmental side too - diesel to the Yanks is truck fuel
No, most Americans don't give a crap about the environment. The reason they had to do this for the US was that the NOx emissions targets are extremely strict, and the reason for THAT is that they have terrible smog issues what with their continental weather and huge traffic problems.
One reason trucks are so popular is that they are classed as work vehicles and exempt from most of the standards IIRC. Also exempt from some taxes, I think.
I'm going to be livid if it gets re-banded and my tax goes up.
I'm in a similar boat but at the moment it's only CO2 based. Fingers crossed the fixes they make don't alter the CO2 ratings also.
If they do I would consider sending the car back to the lease company under change of contract or something similar.
I've had my passat fixed (re-mapped) 😀
[i]I've had my passat fixed (re-mapped)[/i]
Wonder what happens if the VAG fix is mandatory? You have to have it mapped back to the 'wrong' map before they remap it to their new one and then you revert to your original remap.
One reason trucks are so popular is that they are classed as work vehicles and exempt from most of the standards IIRC. Also exempt from some taxes, I think.
I think he's talking about big trucks hauling cargo not pick-up trucks. A lot of pick-ups will be petrol.
It's a conundrum isn't it. Probably the sensible thing to do is wait and see- the response is bound to vary region to region depending on what the real world impact is. I gather it might turn out to be irrelevant to EU testing.
brooess - Member+ if you don't get it fixed then you know you're causing massive environmental damage...
Probably more the case that you're causing the same environmental damage as an equivalent car from a couple of years earlier. If driving a cheaty VW is a cardinal sin then driving my euro 3 mondeo is too. And if a software fix comes down that affects drivability, then remapping it will probably still be possible and again, no more of a sin than remapping any other car.
It'll be interesting to see the actual real world impact of the cheat though.
I think he's talking about big trucks hauling cargo not pick-up trucks. A lot of pick-ups will be petrol.
Yes, but most people would like a diesel one. They are much more expensive to buy though so you don't see that many.
Not a lot is going to happen.
VW will do a recall. Slap on the wrists. Life continues as normal.
I'm going to demand they replace it with the 3.6 V6 out of a Passat R36 if my T5 has to go back.
Not a lot is going to happen.
Maybe in Europe.
I suspect the US will fine them a huge amount (as per BP).
brooess - Member+ if you don't get it fixed then you know you're causing massive environmental damage...
It's not that I don't care about it, it's just I don't trust the tests.
Emissions tests are frankly bullshit - it's not their fault, there's millions and millions of Pounds/Dollars/Euros at stake, if a manufacturer can produce a car that's taxed at a lower rate than their competitor they'll sell more, so they'll be all over the whoever tests such things to be 'fair' and very many expensive law suits will follow if they think there's even a tiny discrepancy in testing.
So they test during laboratory conditions - and the conditions are published and known - so they all cheat to a certain extent, for most manufacturers it means their engines 'turn down' at the rpm / load that the tests are taken so whilst they might produce a certain amount of gases in the tests, there's no guarantee they do in 99% of normal driving conditions and consumers can't really tell which car will produce the most pollutants during their normal drive or even which will use the most fuel, because they fudge that test too.
Where VW went wrong is that they designed their fudge to only work under very strict test conditions not just at certain rpms and loads.
Doesn't really mean they're any better or worse than BMW / Ford / Citroen etc.
Perhaps they need better tests.
As for my original question, I just don't know - I certainly won't be first in line to have it done, I'll wait until news reaches the internet of what they're like afterwards, I don't want a lumpy, sooty less-efficient car that produces less Nitrogen.
As quite a few people have pointed out already, the EU tests focus on CO2 emissions, which is primarily a petrol engine pollutant. I have a VAG group petrol eco-engine, (if there is such a thing). I'm thinking that in a few weeks there's going to be more revelations about a petrol defeat device to reduce CO2. Which will probably make the diesel NOx issue pail into insignificance.
NOx is produced by the higher combustion temperatures of diesel engines. Generally, to reduce the temperature they throttle the actual combustion in the cylinder by reducing o2, often by recirculating exhaust gases with their particulates, CO and altered co2 and o2 balance.
If you sqaush the power from the burn to reduce emissions, you can only reduce the power you get from the fuel.
Where VW went wrong is that they designed their fudge to only work under very strict test conditions not just at certain rpms and loads.Doesn't really mean they're any better or worse than BMW / Ford / Citroen etc.
Having bought a 120d in the midst of this crisis, with its £30 VED I find i am in the last two days achieving 59mpg on a 90 mile round trip, 20 miles of which are through London, 30 Miles A/B roads and the rest a free flowing M25.
I looked into how I'm achieving this fantastic mileage amongst the evidence so far published concerned about a future recall and, brearing in mind the response above, disvcovered that ECO PRO mode - which i actually havent used much - in the Beemer does exactly this:
If you sqaush the power from the burn to reduce emissions, you can only reduce the power you get from the fuel.
... mutes the combustions and throttle input and also the on screen shift display has me using such low revs I'm barely toucing the 1250rpm-3750rpm torque band, 40mph in 6th in some cases also with start/stop. Hence, I'd guess my car would have been tested in precisely this way, with the cleanest possible fuel to get through the system.
I'm also guessing the using its 184bhp/340nm in Sport mode would never pass those tests.
I doubt very much that the 'fix' is going to do anything other than remove the cheat code and make it more 'honest' in tests anyway. I doubt that it will do anything to real world emissions; I suspect that the emissions targets are unacheivable anyway for that given engine/performance/fuel, hence the cheat codes very existence. I won't be giving them my Golf GTD just to make it 'honest'. It's a lose lose for me; it either doesn't make any real world difference, in which case it was inconvenient and pointless, or it makes the car emit less stuff, which will have to impact on an aspect of drivability or fuel consumption. It's due to go back to the lease company next year, they can do it then if they like.
if a manufacturer can produce a car that's taxed at a lower rate than their competitor they'll sell more
I don't think there's a sliding tax on emissions in the US - I think it's a case of approved or not.
Kryton's point about eco mode is interesting. I noticed whilst my colleague was browsing for new company cars that the Skoda Superb has a driving mode button as an optional extra. I wonder what that does? If it does indeed change the engine map for better economy and lower emissions, then surely you need to test the car with it *not* in eco mode otherwise it's just another fudge?
Golf GTD has an eco and a sport mode, too. Goes like shit off a shovel in sport mode, but it does sup the devil juice at a remarkable rate... Hence Eco 'most' of the time for me.
The Eco mode on BM's is about reducing fuel consumption by reducing throttle response, limiting the air con etc. That saves fuel, but I guess it does reduce emissions.
The only way to save emissions is not to drive a car.
Back to the OP. I would be mighty pissed off if my car was recalled, gets remapped and doesn't perform as well ie same acceleration, mpg etc.
Surely at that point you have been miss sold the product and entitled to money back or compensation ?
Seeing as I'm being paid the mileage I'll drive all the way in Sport mode tomorrow to see the difference. I'm not expecting there to be much as my journey conditions - during rush hour - will be the same, i won't get the chance to give it the beans.
But molgrips - its a fudge in plain sight or a switch out of ewco pro by choice, and assuming the test cars are the same there are visual indicators everywhere once it goes into eco pro, so the testers would have been aware.
Yes, but do they test it in eco mode or not? It ought to be in non eco mode, because they must be aware that people will want to simply leave it off.
Ladies & Gents,
Just wanted to clear a few things up regarding this situation as there is a lot of mis-information floating around (in the media/piblic in general, not necessarily on STW).
Briefly, my credentials are that I am a calibration engineer in the auto industry - my direct coutnerpart at VW would have been the one implementing (and now fixing) the defeat device in the ECU strategy.
Interesting point about the US test v the EU test, as I understand it the EU is more focused on Co2 - hence why Diesels are so popular in Europe.
As quite a few people have pointed out already, the EU tests focus on CO2 emissions, which is primarily a petrol engine pollutant
CO2 is NOT legislated in the European emissions test (or the US one). CO2 is legislated by an overall fleet average, but it is not a requirement for a singular vehicle to hit a CO2 target. The EMS will be calibrated to hit a CO2 target, but this can be anything the manufacturer desires - however this would be the value that determines the tax band in the UK. Perhaps a subtle, but an important distinction.
I'm thinking that in a few weeks there's going to be more revelations about a petrol defeat device to reduce CO2
Very doubtful. In the simplest terms a gasoline emissions test is pretty easy to pass. As long as you get a good amount of heat down the exhaust and light the cat off quickly then jobs a good-un. HOW you get the cat lit off quickly is the tricky bit without hitting CO limits, but as it's such a tiny portion of the test there wouldn't really be any point in having a defeat device as it has absolutely no bearing on real-world driving (by the time you've set off, the cat will have lit off).
Various quotes about CO2 increasing
Sadly, the easiest way to get the NOx levels down will almost certainly increase CO2. The simplest method is just to crack the EGR valve open slightly further. This will bring NOx down quite quickly, but the way the EGR is calibrated is on a NOx/CO2 (and PM) curve so if one goes one way, the other one must go the other way. As to how much this will be I'm not sure without knowing the engine/EMS. However the chances are if they go this way then it probably will.
Various quotes on the EU test cycle
One thing that most people are correct on is that the EU test cycle is crap. The industry thinks it is crap as well. When the WLTC test comes in, it is a much more realistic drive cycle (similar to the US FTP cycle) which will help, but there is also a real world driving element - this is actually on road rather than a 'representative' cycle and with portable emissions equipment. This will be a great help in getting cars to actual emit low emissions in every day driving.
Those are some of the main bits I wanted to clear up, feel free to fire any questions this way (might not know all of them, I am mainly a gasoline cal engineer, but will try!).
Someone else coming in here speaking from knowledge and first hand experience.
That's pages of wild speculation and bickering we've lost now 😉
Yes, but do they test it in eco mode or not? It ought to be in non eco mode, because they must be aware that people will want to simply leave it off.
Knew I'd missed one....
The test must be run in the 'Normal' driving mode. This is the mode that the car will be in when it leaves the factory. If you have to press a button to get in to ECO mode then the test will NOT have been performed in that mode. The condition of the car must be exactly as it would be if you picked up a car straight from the factory, pressed no buttons and then started it and drove away. This is why you have to turn Stop/Start OFF rather than ON for example.
What is bad in the test is that it doesn't legislate for emissions with AC on, 'Sport' modes etc - the US test does have an AC on component, but currently the EU test doesn't. I believe that will come in with the new regs.
Where things like ECO mode do help is that the manufacturer can claim credits towards their overall fleet CO2 target if they implement 'CO2 reducing features' in their vehicles. Where this gets stupid is that you can claim these credits even if a driver may never use it.
I work for a large Diesel engine manufacturer. To reduce NOx emissions there's a knock on effect with fuel economy. Our low-e files are far worse economy wise. It's a misconception by most people that you must be burning less fuel to give out less "nasties" in the exhaust. It's the opposite as you're not "burning" the fuel properly so most of the energy from the fuel is wasted. So you're happy in your nice VW, Seat etc with loads of torque etc and good mpg, now a remap will eff it right up for you (possibly)... I'd be well p'd off.
So is my 530d going to be visiting a bmw dealer in the near future for emasculation?
I'd personally say this won't spread far out of VW. Any manufacturer I have worked with has certainly not had a 'defeat device' and the same is being said by my colleagues (who are diesel based so more qualified to answer that).
To be honest I'm very surprised it got to the point of being implemented. A HUGE number of engineers would have had to know about this. There would have had to have been 2 entire calibrations developed if the defeat code worked as expected and switched in a different set of running maps when it detected it was in an emissions test. Plus Bosch would have had to provide the software to even allow it to do this in the first place - now Bosch's defence will be that it was provided for development purposes and to be fair to them it is not their call to implement it in production, but they would have known about it.
BMW does use it's own EMS though....so not sure about them.....but would still be surprised if they have used a similar method of cheating tests.
And similar because my 120d does not include any "blue" technology (urea), I can be assured that the outcomes I'm getting are real and mechanically arisen then?
Because only "driving" it can test the emissions?
Cheers 🙂
I think the legal thing and how far up the company it goes will be interesting.
.That's pages of wild speculation and bickering we've lost now
Great, my wife is out, I have rum and there's nothing decent on telly. What will I do now?
Having picked up our new £0 VED Octavia diesel last week, I really couldn't give a stuff.
We'd have bought it regardless of emissions or this outcry, it was the best car/deal in our price bracket for our needs.
What VW did was wrong, I suspect that they may not be the only ones, and I suspect a lot of people will be jumping on the bandwagon who never even knew their car had emissions....
£0 VED Octavia
Not for long ...
All diesels are starting to look pretty questionable now, the affects on public health are so great that it would be reasonable to ban them from cities etc
Residually when so many schools are close to main roads etc
That'll never happen though, the government wouldn't want to piss off that many people and businesses
And similar because my 120d does not include any "blue" technology (urea), I can be assured that the outcomes I'm getting are real and mechanically arisen then?
Dunno what you mean there - the urea is to reduce NOx in the exhaust after the engine, so the engine can be tuned to run more efficiently in the first place.
Having an older vag vehicle I was feeling a bit left out so fitted a straight through exhaust and blanked the egr valve..
[i]Plus Bosch would have had to provide the software to even allow it to do this in the first place - now Bosch's defence will be that it was provided for development purposes and to be fair to them it is not their call to implement it in production, but they would have known about it. [/i]
Didn't I read that Bosch had warned VW not to customise the code, back in 2007?
Yep, found it.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/report-bosch-warned-vw-about-diesel-emissions-cheating-in-2007/
Ah ok - yeah, there we go, so it was supplied as a 'demo' software. Still surprised there wasn't further warnings (there may have been, who knows) as Bosch have to receive the calibration in order to 'industrialise' it for flashing to the ECUs they supply.
Maybe we'll find out, maybe we wont.
Why would Bosch even have created it? What purpose would it have served?
If I were transport minister right now, I'd be creating a mahoosive spereadsheet to work out how much VAG owes the UK economy in back taxes.... I wouldn't charge the owners, they bought their cars in good faith.
Why would Bosch even have created it? What purpose would it have served?
Could have been intentionally for this purpose just to see how well it would work? Could have been intended as a way of running 2 seperate cals in different conditions and an unfortunate consequence is that it could be used to cheat tests?
Either way, if Bosch denoted it as test software it should never have been used for a production calibration. Bosch add in all sorts of things to software at manufacturers requests to trial systems so it's no surprise they made it for VW, but it's pretty bad that VW defied Bosch and got it productionised (although Bosch probably could have quite easily put a stop to it....)
I think he's talking about big trucks hauling cargo not pick-up trucks. A lot of pick-ups will be petrol.
It's called rolling coal, look it up on YouTube, I'd like to say a country full of contradictions, but I'd rather say a country full of @/-;€%<~#|\\_}{<%####,>#>*^^^%%<<~,?!!€$¥{][{........ Pardon my French.
Looks like no one will have to pay higher VED in the UK....
Bit of a shame as it cheats the system if you allow one manufacturer to effectively get away with a lower VED banding. As for VW buyers, they could have just sued VW for the difference. So the only people who benefit at the end of the day are VW.
Looks like no one will have to pay higher VED in the UK
I never expected to be.
I'm even more amazed, the recall is now optional in the UK. The Government has now effectively approved of VW's defeat device.. You are under no obligation to get your car fixed so can carry on polluting with complete impunity. The only missing statement is one saying they'll take no action against VW over the defeat device.
^^^ But in practice all they're doing is deleting irrelevant software. It's not going to do anything else so why would UK government be bothered whether it was done.
Not clear what they'll do exactlyy. The expectation is that whatever the fix is it will reduce pollutants which ought to be made a compulsory fix (esp given the VED band is based on it).
Currently the SW switches off pollution reduction once the car is driven in 'non test' mode, so any non fixed car is over-polluting.
Mind you, the Tories have never given a f*** about the poor (who disproportionately suffer pollution at higher levels) or the environment and always favoured big business, so no real surprise.
Given the governments response I suspect the 'recall' will just remove the 'device' as they call it, which seems odd given it only functions in very specific circumstances that are unlikely the be replicated on the road - now if they said the recall made the cars produce the published level of pollutants that would be a different story.
But it's not our test so WGAS, EU testing is Co2 based not NOx.
EU testing is Co2 based not NOx.
Nope. EU tests cover CO2 and NO*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Emission_standards_for_passenger_cars
EU testing is Co2 based not NOx.
CO2 isn't legislated per vehicle, it is only legislated as a fleet average. NOx IS legislated per vehicle for tailpipe emissions.
As for the suggestion of electric cars as a green alternative. Not as far as CO2 goes they aren't. The Nissan Leaf, a small car, gets around 130g per mile. Most recent petrol/diesel cars the same size would beat that.
The 130g figure comes from this blog entry.
http://www.jaffacake.net/dx/nissan-leaf-hidden-emissions
Seems about right. According to a Nissan Leaf users forum the car gets around 3.8 miles for each Kwh. In the UK electricity generation is around 500g per Kwh. So 500/3.8 is 131g per mile. In ideal conditions of course. I'd guess that in winter or summer where battery power is being used to heat or cool the car the CO2 per mile would increase quite a bit.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electricity-emissions-around-the-world
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?t=8489
It's far more complicated than that irc... Do the costs of using petrol/diesel for instance include the co2 generated from fossil fuels in refining and extracting the petrol/diesel? Usually the quoted co2 figure for a car is just the co2 produced from burning the (already refined) fuel.
Likewise the quoted CO2 figure for a Leaf is just the CO2 produced from burning the already refined extracted coal/gas. I agree it's complicated, just pointing out electric cars are nowhere near CO2 free. Moving a big lump of metal around is always going to use a lot of energy.
Of course not, electric simply shifts the problem elsewhere. However, a lot of the variability comes down to WHAT is producing the electricity, there will be a massive difference between coal and nuclear before you even look at renewables.
You are under no obligation to get your car fixed so can carry on polluting with complete impunity.
Likewise I'm under no obligation to upgrade my Euro IV diesel. In fact I could buy anything up to the highest (most polluting) tax band if I wanted to. I'm not sure what your point is here, are you more bothered by people effectively getting a tax break or by the fact that people are legally allowed to drive cars that pollute more than they claim?
As for diesels in general, I bet you still get several times more crap coming out the back end of a bus than any car. I'd be surprised if PCV's even break even on pollution per average occupant the way most seem to be run.
Bit of a shame as it cheats the system if you allow one manufacturer to effectively get away with a lower VED banding. As for VW buyers, they could have just sued VW for the difference. So the only people who benefit at the end of the day are VW.
It's not a shame at all, it means I can carry on killing kittens for a mere £30 a year, huge relief.
I ordered a Passat GTD (loads of extras added) on the 4th June for delivery on 1.10.2015, they told me about 5 weeks ago(before the scandal was known) that it will be delayed. It will not be built until, not delivered, built in week 52 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder if they knew what was to come or is it just a coincidence, who knows?
They gave me some bullshit that a company that supplies some major parts to build of the Passat in Europe had burnt down.
Not sure if I want the Passat now 🙁
Black cabs, I would LOVE to know how much crap comes out the back of one of them when they burp big black clouds on take off!? Always wondered how they get an mot.
On VED generally, I wondered if the tax should be mileage based (at the pump only? Or at year end?). I pay £290 per year for my evil Subaru, but do 5000 a year at most. Mr Salesman pays £0 VED for his cuddly VAG but does 50000miles...
Or do you think his tax at the pump is fair enough?
I've always thought that abolishing VED and increasing fuel duty to compensate is a good idea. Amount of fuel that you put in has to be a pretty good indicator of the amount of CO2 that comes out. Plus you get rid of the cost of administering the tax system, and make tax evasion much harder. Cars run pretty well without tax, but less well without fuel.
The obvious flaw in the plan is that it involves the phrase "increasing fuel duty", therefore rendering any sensible and logical discussion of the problem impossible.
pdw, i agree, 1p per litre would cover, impossible to avoid, zero administration charges, the people who use the roads the most pay the most, (more or less, anyway).
im struggling to see any real downsides to it.
Other than it makes travel in rural areas, already woefully under-served by public transport, even more expensive?
pdw - MemberI've always thought that abolishing VED and increasing fuel duty to compensate is a good idea. Amount of fuel that you put in has to be a pretty good indicator of the amount of CO2 that comes out. Plus you get rid of the cost of administering the tax system, and make tax evasion much harder. Cars run pretty well without tax, but less well without fuel.
I'd be opposed to it based on the fact that there's already 60p (?) per litre on fuel already which I think is farcical. Also, from a psychological point of view a person/family buying a car will certainly be swayed if they have the option of buying a car with £30 VED or £110 VED. In real world terms the difference they are paying might be negligible if that tax was added to the fuel, but it'll be a bigger encouragement to chose the green option if they can see that tax on the car. 1p on the fuel will just be perceived as part of the overall fuel cost.
If that makes sense.
Also, from a psychological point of view a person/family buying a car will certainly be swayed if they have the option of buying a car with £30 VED or £110 VED
But that argument is history. From April 2017 it is a flat rate £140 VED, other than a few quid extra in year 1 which I suggest won't mater. If you can afford a brand new car a few quid either way on VED won't sway you.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vehicle-excise-duty/vehicle-excise-duty
I agree with abolishing VED and adding it to fuel duty. 1p per litre is too low though. Taking the £140 VED. A q12k per year driver in a 50mpg car uses 240 gallons per year. Or 1091L.
12k miles by 1091L gives 11p per liter to replace VED with extra fuel duty.
Well, cars have to get more expensive to run if we want to influence what technologies car manufacturers invest in to develop. Clearly the diesel dream was not the correct dream, more of a nightmare as ultimately it's done more harm to the environment and peoples health. The future has to be in electric and hybrid cars, so more and more tax/cost has to be loaded onto fuel to coax drivers out of petrol/diesel cars and into electric and hybrid cars. We also need to re-evaluate our use of cars and maybe for some journeys we should be using public transport more and maybe changing from our love of large shopping centres, to more local smaller shops to avoid the need for driving out to the supermarket for your weekly shop. Scrapping VED and loading up tax on fuel seems the best option to me. VED is pointless as a tax on emissions as someone who drives 6k miles a year pays the same as someone who does 150k per year. That is just stupid, and adds a bureaucratic burden which has to be paid for too.
11p/litre duty in place of VED is nothing.
Here the price has varied by way more than that in the last year both up and down, to the extent that I thought the pump had a dicky display when I tanked up the other day.
€1.32/litre (for 98 octane), when it has been as high as €1.76. Plus it varies by about 1/3rd of that 11p just by day of the week (fuel price always goes up thursday evening and down monday, presumably because more people tank up at the weekend?).
VED could be used far better by taxing cars based upon the environmental impact of manufacture, repair and disposal
The true picture of a transport should not just be what comes out of the exhaust pipe.
Having low emissions out of the tail pipe may well be as big a cheat as the VAG (and others) fiasco
Anyhow the impact isn't just limited to NOx or CO2.
@sas I am in a similar situation paying £500 a year for a car in which I do 3-5000 miles a year and a good chunk of that is outside the UK. The problem with taxing fuel further is that it becomes a tax bourne by those living in rural areas. I think a balanced approach much like we had before makes sense. It's certainly annoying I pay £500 whilst a mate with a VAG 2TDI with cheat device and stop/start which he turns off pays a tiny fraction of that
As a comparison cars in Singapre have to pay 10 years of emissions costs upfront, this is roughly £20k and after 10 years you must buy it again or export the car. They also have VAT rate for cars of 100% and road tolls everywhere. A standard Golf costs about £60-70k. The roads are still packed and many people have cars worth more than their homes (a Lamborghini of which there are many costs about £400k)
adding it to fuel is a very bad idea, you can guarantee it would be done in a way which costs you more unless you do very low mileage.
then there is also the fuel used that isn't used on the roads, my trackday car is purely for track use so not taxed. the 60+ litres i used at oulton park on tuesday would of been even more expensive and for the 9/10 trackdays i do a year the yearly cost would be a big extra. then there would also be the increased diesel cost to tow the car there behind my van.
just doing one of my hobby's would easily cost more than it would to tax both vehicles.