|
One thing to bear in mind is that you'll need to budget a decent amount for both fuel, as the 2L will probably only get 35mpg, but also VED, as the engines are older design and thus more polluting on the CO2 front - looking at the pre-2017 registered car bands', which currently sets you back £320pa for the later Band I 1.6s, £365pa for the Band J 2L and a whopping £675pa for the Band L 2.7 V6 car.
I was an admirer of these back in the day (I prefer the 2L, as you get most of the the trim upgrades the V6 does, but without the really hefty mpg and VED penalty, and not much difference in performance), but have noticed most can get quite tatty if owners don't really look after them. Hopefully the one you're looking at has been.
|
|
Thanks for the reminder of how unfair VED or road tax to the more realistic , is grossly unfair. What are owners expected to do with these cars pay up or scrap them. Most are probably used to get the owner back and for to work, pay their taxes, and have nothing in their pockets to replace it Meanwhile some with money to burn on a more modern car pay a lot less or even nothing. It is probably the VED stick which will see the end of ICE
|
Thanks for the reminder of how unfair VED or road tax to the more realistic , is grossly unfair. What are owners expected to do with these cars pay up or scrap them.
I don't see how you can complain about pollution and use of fossil fuels, and then blame the Govt for applying pressure to persuade drivers to use (and cause) less ? It's not totally a question of 'fair ' - whatever that may mean in this context. Owners of cars with bigger engines than needed have chosen to spend (or waste) their hard-earned how they want. As I presume you would approve ?
|
Thanks for the reminder of how unfair VED or road tax to the more realistic , is grossly unfair. What are owners expected to do with these cars pay up or scrap them.
I don't see how you can complain about pollution and use of fossil fuels, and then blame the Govt for applying pressure to persuade drivers to use (and cause) less ? It's not totally a question of 'fair ' - whatever that may mean in this context. Owners of cars with bigger engines than needed have chosen to spend (or waste) their hard-earned how they want. As I presume you would approve ?
To be fair, someone owning a car that emits a high amount of CO2 but who does low mileages is no different to one who owns a newer car that has half the emissions but uses it twice as much.
More often than not, high CO2 emissions (comparatively-speaking) is often linked to low mpg, so why not just add a small amount onto fuel duty and put a nominal (fixed) fee onto motor insurance to cover the cost of the Police etc having required access to our car information when involved in accidents, traffic stops, etc.
It would cut out all the bureaucracy on the VED front. People treated more equally, as long as the bump in fuel duty was small.
|
|
""o be fair, someone owning a car that emits a high amount of CO2 but who does low mileages is no different to one who owns a newer car that has half the emissions but uses it twice as much.""
Yes a very good point. These days some must feel like they are second class citizens the way their cars are taxed. Remember the Two Ronnies sketch. " I look down at him because I am upper class"" "" I look up to him I know my place" How very superior to have a low emissions car!
|
""o be fair, someone owning a car that emits a high amount of CO2 but who does low mileages is no different to one who owns a newer car that has half the emissions but uses it twice as much.""
Yes a very good point. These days some must feel like they are second class citizens the way their cars are taxed. Remember the Two Ronnies sketch. " I look down at him because I am upper class"" "" I look up to him I know my place" How very superior to have a low emissions car!
There are 86 zero-VED petrol cars for sale for less than £2,500 on Autotrader. If someone wants to save VED, they have a choice.
However, yes, increase fuel duty and get rid of VED entirely seems like the sensible.option.
|
|
<< yes, increase fuel duty and get rid of VED entirely seems like the sensible.option. >>
OK, a rough calculation : assume average driver does 9K miles/year at 10 miles/litre (45mpg), so 900 litres @ £1.40, say £1250 at the pump.
VED can vary widely, so if we say £200/year, that would typically add 20-25p to a litre of fuel, as a ball-park figure. Quite a big jump, and maybe enough to make heavy users look for alternative sources where prices are more favourable ?
|
<< yes, increase fuel duty and get rid of VED entirely seems like the sensible.option. >>
OK, a rough calculation : assume average driver does 9K miles/year at 10 miles/litre (45mpg), so 900 litres @ £1.40, say £1250 at the pump.
VED can vary widely, so if we say £200/year, that would typically add 20-25p to a litre of fuel, as a ball-park figure. Quite a big jump, and maybe enough to make heavy users look for alternative sources where prices are more favourable ?
Like electricity?
|
<< yes, increase fuel duty and get rid of VED entirely seems like the sensible.option. >>
OK, a rough calculation : assume average driver does 9K miles/year at 10 miles/litre (45mpg), so 900 litres @ £1.40, say £1250 at the pump.
VED can vary widely, so if we say £200/year, that would typically add 20-25p to a litre of fuel, as a ball-park figure. Quite a big jump, and maybe enough to make heavy users look for alternative sources where prices are more favourable ?
Like electricity?
It is not just about a fair VED. As Rowan A said these older cars have long paid off their carbon footprint before the phrase was even coined, and to replace them prematurely only means that somewhere a new carbon emitting beast will be made. Remember the great car scrappage scheme I wonder how many perfectly road worthy cars were scrapped for someone to make a profit and some buyer to go into debt. The car industry is only interested in its profit and its carbon truth well hidden like their diesel cheat software.
|
|
<< Remember the great car scrappage scheme I wonder how many perfectly road worthy cars were scrapped for someone to make a profit and some buyer to go into debt. >>
Answering the question - lots, many of them perfectly serviceable cars with low mileages. But IIRC the scheme was to give the motor industry something to do instead of collapsing altogether with predictable political consequences, not about making profit per se.
|
<< Remember the great car scrappage scheme I wonder how many perfectly road worthy cars were scrapped for someone to make a profit and some buyer to go into debt. >>
Answering the question - lots, many of them perfectly serviceable cars with low mileages. But IIRC the scheme was to give the motor industry something to do instead of collapsing altogether with predictable political consequences, not about making profit per se.
So they made no profit out of it, I am crying into my breakfast cereal!
|
|
Zzzzz. Anyway, back to the original Hyundai query. Thread hijackers, go elsewhere.
Edited by Sprice on 14/06/2023 at 09:57
|
|
<< yes, increase fuel duty and get rid of VED entirely seems like the sensible.option. >>
OK, a rough calculation : assume average driver does 9K miles/year at 10 miles/litre (45mpg), so 900 litres @ £1.40, say £1250 at the pump.
VED can vary widely, so if we say £200/year, that would typically add 20-25p to a litre of fuel, as a ball-park figure. Quite a big jump, and maybe enough to make heavy users look for alternative sources where prices are more favourable ?
Don't forget about the savings in administration and costs borne by everyone when retaxing their vehicles. Those ongoing savings would then be more disposable income (albeit small amounts each, but they add up) and less government spending that could either be spent elsewhere or go towards reducing any bump in fuel duty, etc.
Of course, the price of fuel at presnt is partly high because of the lack of new drilling projects due to the windfall tax (which sadly all mainstream political parties support) and the real threat from the Leader of the opposition to stop any new ones, whatever the disincetnive via the windfall tax.
Fuel prices (like with natural gas) should essentially be far closer to the pre-Pandemic levels due to the world commodity prices now being around what it was during the 5 year period up to early 2020.
I think that the public would accept VED being replaced by a fair increase in fuel duty, as it penalises those who use their vehicle the most or who drive gas-guzzlers.
Low usage drivers might see a large percentage increase in costs, but the actual cost increase in raw terms would be small compared to other household costs, and offset (probably easily) by not having to shell out £300+ (as I do) for the 'privieldge' of running my car for 1500 - 3000 miles a year.
|
|
OK back to the Hyundai coupe. It is not a bad looking car but not that roomy really a 2 seater. A 2litre should have taken the mileage easily and fuel consumption would not be unreasonable.. There are more practical cars and I would not discount a Cat D for this money. VED which lead us of is a factor and increases year by year. You have done the MOT checks so if its a coupe you want well Hyundai good enough
|
|
|
|
|
|
