 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / March 2006UK Saabers only
Our beloved chancellor has anounced an increase in Vehicle Excise Duty (tax disc to most!) for cars in bands F and G. Does my beloved C900 and/or my beloved's 9000 Anni' fall fould of the 225g/km rule? As I really think another £40 per vehicle is going to break the bank......;-) Al > Our beloved chancellor has anounced an increase in Vehicle Excise Duty > (tax disc to most!) for cars in bands F and G. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Al Nope, only post 2001 cars are going to be emission based. C900 will still fit into the >1599cc engine band. That means a £5 increase to £175 per year.  SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com > > Our beloved chancellor has anounced an increase in Vehicle Excise Duty > > (tax disc to most!) for cars in bands F and G. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > C900 will still fit into the >1599cc engine band. > That means a £5 increase to £175 per year. Registered on or after 1 March 2001, to be precise. Anyway, the new VED will have little or no effect on the use of large cars. Say, driving 10,000 miles/y @ 20mpg will cost about £2500 in fuel, an increase of £40 on VED isn't going to deter anyone. BTW, why do they use these silly bands? Why not use the g/km figures directly? Say 1£ per g/km at the moment? >Anyway, the new VED will have little or no effect on the use of large >cars. Say, driving 10,000 miles/y @ 20mpg will cost about £2500 in fuel, >an increase of £40 on VED isn't going to deter anyone. Yup, that is why I'm seriously liking this if the convertible sells. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/TOYOTA-CENTURY-LIMO-LEXUS-LUXURY- crown_W0QQitemZ4623509709 SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com > >Anyway, the new VED will have little or no effect on the use of large > >cars. Say, driving 10,000 miles/y @ 20mpg will cost about £2500 in fuel, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/TOYOTA-CENTURY-LIMO-LEXUS-LUXURY- > crown_W0QQitemZ4623509709 Nice one. That car certainly has some presence on the road. And Toyotas are generally reliable. It will probably go low because of fear of costs. > > >Anyway, the new VED will have little or no effect on the use of large > > >cars. Say, driving 10,000 miles/y @ 20mpg will cost about £2500 in fuel, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Nice one. That car certainly has some presence on the road. And Toyotas are > generally reliable. It will probably go low because of fear of costs. And the same tax as a C900. Hmm, massaging seats. Bordello velour. SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >Our beloved chancellor has anounced an increase in Vehicle Excise Duty >(tax disc to most!) for cars in bands F and G. > >Does my beloved C900 and/or my beloved's 9000 Anni' fall fould of the >225g/km rule? As I really think another £40 per vehicle is going to >break the bank......;-) My beloved 9-5 coughs 245g/Km which means a rise from 165 quid to 190. Well it would have cost so if I had not run out yesterday to pay the 165 on the spot. The tosspot primed the media with lots of anti-4x4 propaganda but basically stiffed any decent-sized motah with a tax rise while the meeja did their job by repeating the "gas guzzling" mantra. Estate agents, journalists, politicians - do you wonder why they live under rocks in dark damp places? Driving a Smart is not much cheaper (not as comfortable or safe). There's mileage in dressing theft with environmental concerns. SignatureOld anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com > >Our beloved chancellor has anounced an increase in Vehicle Excise Duty > >(tax disc to most!) for cars in bands F and G. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke > So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com Er was your tax due? If not you'll lose out on the tax left on the disk surely? Al Colum Mylod wrote: > >Our beloved chancellor has anounced an increase in Vehicle Excise Duty > >(tax disc to most!) for cars in bands F and G. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke > So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com Er was your tax due? If not you'll lose out on the tax left on the disk surely? Al Not if the old disc ran out on 31/3/06 and he bought a new one to start on 1/4/06. It pays to have a car that is taxed for these dates when you have a non driver like Brown in charge.I did this on tuesday for my son but the 4x4 which I am seeing tomorrow will cost me £215. >>Er was your tax due? If not you'll lose out on the tax left on the >>disk surely? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >non driver like Brown in charge.I did this on tuesday for my son but the 4x4 >which I am seeing tomorrow will cost me £215. Yes my tax was due for April 1. You can't pay them more than 15 days in advance. When I get a car, I avoid the insurance-tax crunch by getting an initial 6 month disc. Costs a little extra but by the time the tax is due the insurance is well sorted out. I usually get the new disc on the day it's due but this time they get their money 10 days early to save me money! As John says, you have to keep such things in mind. Our tv licence is similarly due in April to get the benefit before the next hike. Spot the trend with monopolist money grabbers. SignatureOld anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com > >>Er was your tax due? If not you'll lose out on the tax left on the > >>disk surely? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > similarly due in April to get the benefit before the next hike. Spot > the trend with monopolist money grabbers. Good for you Colum, a man after my own heart! Incidentally on my new (used) car I will only be paying £195 as the £215 charge, £210 for petrol, only applies on new cars registered after the 23rd March. If this government can make something complicated they will. >>>Er was your tax due? If not you'll lose out on the tax left on the >>>disk surely? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>non driver like Brown in charge.I did this on tuesday for my son but the 4x4 >>which I am seeing tomorrow will cost me £215. >Yes my tax was due for April 1. You can't pay them more than 15 days >in advance. When I get a car, I avoid the insurance-tax crunch by >getting an initial 6 month disc. Costs a little extra but by the time >the tax is due the insurance is well sorted out. I usually get the new >disc on the day it's due but this time they get their money 10 days >early to save me money! I wonder when we'll end up with a national or state-based system similar to the UK one here in Australia... >As John says, you have to keep such things in mind. Our tv licence is >similarly due in April to get the benefit before the next hike. Spot >the trend with monopolist money grabbers. What's a TV license if you don't mind me asking? Craig. SignatureCraig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's Email: c900@lios.apana.org.au | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide! Alternate: saabonaut@gmail.com | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc. > What's a TV license if you don't mind me asking? It's an abomination; a historical relic which still rips households off to this day. Basically, you pay £130 a year for the privilege of using a TV to receive *any* broadcast in the UK. The money goes to fund the BBC. Anyone using a TV to receive anything, even if they don't watch the BBC channels at all, has to have a license. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/index.jsp SignatureGrunff >> What's a TV license if you don't mind me asking? > >It's an abomination; a historical relic which still rips households off >to this day. Basically, you pay £130 a year for the privilege of using a >TV to receive *any* broadcast in the UK. The money goes to fund the BBC. The principle is not so bad, but IMHO the real issue is that the gov of the day jack it up as much as the political pain can tolerate. We have no direct means to clamp costs and range. Now the gov want to flog off (as if they own it) chunks of UHF to unspecified payers for unspecified uses, fill in the dots etc, they push the Beeb to "go digital" to reduce their spectrum space. Bright spark: let's add to the licence fee load the costs of forced conversion of the refuseniks who stubbornly stick to 4/5 channels and will need gear to receive the current junk after switchover. Stretching the "licence fee" beyond original use to re-equipping people so the real benefactor can flog spectrum, nice. Kinda same idea as "road tax" going into health and war. But back on topic: when I bought my 9-5 I did budget for congestion zones, road tax, probable petrol consumption, aircon to keep cool on biz trips etc. Apple cart gets turned over each budget: tax up, if the oil companies can get their act together one year and keep the pump price stable, the gov will inflict a price increase instead of them. Once diesel was trendy and green, now it's baad. LPG good until enough boots have big tanks -> soak them. SignatureOld anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com > The principle is not so bad Oh, it really, really is. Why the f#£& should I /have/ to pay to fund the BBC even if I don't wish to watch any of its channels? SignatureGrunff > > The principle is not so bad > > Oh, it really, really is. > > Why the f#£& should I /have/ to pay to fund the BBC even if I don't wish > to watch any of its channels? Not only that, but the license is almost considered as an compulsory Tax. If you deny that you have a TV, then the licensing authorities will assume that you're cheating; they will sent out threatening letters of legal action and come round to inspect your home. >>>The principle is not so bad >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that you're cheating; they will sent out threatening letters of legal > action and come round to inspect your home. That sort of fun might be worth not having a telly for. What better entertainment could you ask for? ...and tax-free! ;-) Signature-Fred W >>> The principle is not so bad >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that you're cheating; they will sent out threatening letters of legal > action and come round to inspect your home. For which you can refuse to allow them in ... Go to court ... Have your day out and when asked "How do you plead?", say, "I don't have a TV". Simple as that. Keep wasting their time ... The worst that can happen if you don't have a TV is that you will be inconvenienced with a trip to court once and then the ability to ignore whatever letters come thereafter. Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >> Not only that, but the license is almost considered as an compulsory Tax. >> If you deny that you have a TV, then the licensing authorities will assume [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >have a TV is that you will be inconvenienced with a trip to court once and >then the ability to ignore whatever letters come thereafter. They can fib. But you can do more: every time you buy something on their notification list (tv, VCR, DVB PCI card etc) registrar any old address and add to Crapita's (for it is they) data overload. Red letters will wing their way to multiple phantom addresses. For as a noted Usenet author says, "you're obliged to give them an address but not a correct address"! SignatureOld anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com >> Not only that, but the license is almost considered as an compulsory Tax. >> If you deny that you have a TV, then the licensing authorities will [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have a TV is that you will be inconvenienced with a trip to court once and > then the ability to ignore whatever letters come thereafter. Fear not, they'll get you sooner or later. You have a computer connected to the internet. You can receive BBC on that. Wait till the next budget - they'll have a licence payable on computers. Ron >>> Not only that, but the license is almost considered as an compulsory Tax. >>> If you deny that you have a TV, then the licensing authorities will [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the internet. You can receive BBC on that. Wait till the next budget - > they'll have a licence payable on computers. Well, they say that, but since your mobile phone can "get the BBC" also, will that fall into the same category? What about if your car uses "internet technology" in the future, say, to report faults or service recalls? What about if your washing machine or fridge did likewise? Or a new personal gadget gizmo thing that can't really be called a personal computer comes onto the market? What about if the personal computer simply ceases to exists as a result of that gadget? How will they define a personal computer? How will they define its purpose? I could get my old C64 out and run a web browser on it. If they define it as a web capable computer, then again, what do they mean? One of two things will happen with that one ... Either the definition of the computer will be so strict that anyone will be able to build a slight enough variant to avoid it, or the definition will be so slack that almost anything could be covered by it. If it goes that way, then I reckon the latter, which was the crux of "rantings" the other night (as one happy reader put it). UK law is just so wishy-washy (well, I repeatedly called it "f.cked", but we're before the watershed at the moment) and full of holes either way that unless you have the money to buy your way out or are one of those who are above the law (as in, define it) then you're done for either way. Just one thing about the UK TV license ... If you own a colour TV and license it, that license covers any B&W TVs you might have in the house. Likewise, the B&W license covers only a B&W screen and any radio transistors you have in the house (which the colour license does by proxy). If you have no TV and are one of these people who think they could stand up in court and say "I have no TV", just make sure you have no radios, eh? Oh, and if you receive radio or TV broadcasts on your PC, you must have a TV license. Now, if I did not have a TV, radio and did not view TV or listen the radio transmissions on my PC then do I still need a license because my PC is _capable_ of doing so, by having a web browser and media playing software? If so, why not, since that is the rationale for charging a TV license if you own a TV, but do not use it to receive TV signals (ie only watch videos or DVDs). So, we're back to Ron's point :) Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >> The principle is not so bad > >Oh, it really, really is. > >Why the f#£& should I /have/ to pay to fund the BBC even if I don't wish >to watch any of its channels? I see your point but the dregs on commercial channels are what tilt me towards this form of funding. The hole in my pocket makes me veer back. They should go subscription, because I think that's a win-win for the proper professional model the BBC was, and would allow funding worldwide. The commercial sector tends towards the mediocre unless regulation or proper market forces make it otherwise. See what GM will do with Saab.. (phew! on-topic!) SignatureOld anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com >> Our beloved chancellor has anounced an increase in Vehicle Excise Duty >> (tax disc to most!) for cars in bands F and G. > Driving a Smart is not much cheaper (not as comfortable or safe). > There's mileage in dressing theft with environmental concerns. The costs, in reality, are so close to each other that the disparate grades really seem pointless ... Unless they plan to raise the cost of higher grades over time. In the long term, the difference between the bottom and the top grades is not much more than a visit to the petrol station. I did notice that bioethanol is not listed as a fuel type on the DVLA website. Nor is their any reference to the Biopower car; only the petrol and diesel cars. I have enquired :) My feeling is that they will class it as a petrol car, despite the ability to run on E85. Paul Vart tog vägen vägen? SAAB : Nothing on earth comes close >>Our beloved chancellor has anounced an increase in Vehicle Excise Duty >>(tax disc to most!) for cars in bands F and G. >> >>Does my beloved C900 and/or my beloved's 9000 Anni' fall fould of the >>225g/km rule? As I really think another £40 per vehicle is going to >>break the bank......;-) >My beloved 9-5 coughs 245g/Km which means a rise from 165 quid to 190. >Well it would have cost so if I had not run out yesterday to pay the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >mantra. Estate agents, journalists, politicians - do you wonder why >they live under rocks in dark damp places? >Driving a Smart is not much cheaper (not as comfortable or safe). >There's mileage in dressing theft with environmental concerns. And the Smart 'City' car (we've got them here in Sydney too) are so small that the only thing that would save you in an accident is the airbag cocooning you, and the small weight of the car which would mean it's more likely to bounce than collapse. But they're still incredible death-traps! How good would it have been though for Saab to produce those cars - it's a perfect market for Saab to get into, but of course GM won't have it because it'll compete with their highly-subsidised domestic US car brands. 8-) Something we don't get here is any regular Saab advertising on TV. There are ads in the papers for Saab's whenever there is a major motoring feature (each of the big newpapers has a regular one), but that's about it in terms of mass-media advertising. Craig. SignatureCraig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's Email: c900@lios.apana.org.au | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide! Alternate: saabonaut@gmail.com | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc. Query, WTF is a 'quid?' is that a pound? >>>>SNIP>>>> > >>My beloved 9-5 coughs 245g/Km which means a rise from 165 quid to 190. >>Well it would have cost so if I had not run out yesterday to pay the >>165 on the spot. >>>>>>SNIP>>>>> yes. quid = pound > yes. quid = pound or a knicker or smacker SignatureRichard Sutherland-Smith 19 Webb Road, Wanganui 5001, NZ > And the Smart 'City' car (we've got them here in Sydney too) are so small > that the only thing that would save you in an accident is the airbag > cocooning you, and the small weight of the car which would mean it's more > likely to bounce than collapse. But they're still incredible death-traps! Way off the mark I'm afraid. I'm not a big fan of small cars, but the Smart is a very well designed car, and does extremely well in crashes. Here's a nice vid of one driving into a concrete barrier at 70mph http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-1878.htm (~9Mb) SignatureGrunff You hit a solid object at 70mph and your brain will splatter against the inside of your skull, your ribs will be rammed through all your internal organs by your seatbelt and your neck will almost certainly snap. Fifth gear(the programme maker) made it clear when item was aired that that particullar crash was not surviveable. The Smart car is a great little car round town, and if I didn't have two kids to pick up from school I'd have one over any other hatchback like a shot. Smart is only two seater, and the Smart for Four(?) is rubbish. In a big crash you need weight and crumple zones, big crumple zones. Weight to reduce change of momentum in the case of you hitting an oncoming vehicle and crumple zones to slow the impact. (Simple Physics) In fairness though Grunff I'd probably be equally dead in my C900 or any other vehicle going 70mph into a barrier, but I suppose in the Smart car it might be easier to shovel my remains into a body bag! > In fairness though Grunff I'd probably be equally dead in my C900 or > any other vehicle going 70mph into a barrier, but I suppose in the > Smart car it might be easier to shovel my remains into a body bag! The point really was that the structural integrity of the car held up quite well. If the cage survived that crash at 70mph, you should be able to walk away from a similar crash at 50mph (don't forget that kinetic energy goes up with the square of the velocity). SignatureGrunff > > In fairness though Grunff I'd probably be equally dead in my C900 or > > any other vehicle going 70mph into a barrier, but I suppose in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to walk away from a similar crash at 50mph (don't forget that kinetic > energy goes up with the square of the velocity). That might well be. The Smart is also quite heavy around 700 Kg, virtually the same as many sub mini cars. However, I can't help feeling that the closeness of the occupants to the front and rear panels makes them very exposed. As they are able to go 80+mph, I am often overtaken by those on the motorway. >You hit a solid object at 70mph and your brain will splatter against >the inside of your skull, your ribs will be rammed through all your >internal organs by your seatbelt and your neck will almost certainly >snap. Fifth gear(the programme maker) made it clear when item was >aired that that particullar crash was not surviveable. >The Smart car is a great little car round town, and if I didn't have >two kids to pick up from school I'd have one over any other hatchback >like a shot. Smart is only two seater, and the Smart for Four(?) is >rubbish. >In a big crash you need weight and crumple zones, big crumple zones. >Weight to reduce change of momentum in the case of you hitting an >oncoming vehicle and crumple zones to slow the impact. (Simple Physics) True. The less weight the less energy to absorb so that's about the only thing favouring smaller vehicles for crashworthiness, but they do little to stop the human body's momentum short of holding the torso with a seat belt and popping balloons (oh sorry airbags!) to keep provide some degree of bounce. >In fairness though Grunff I'd probably be equally dead in my C900 or >any other vehicle going 70mph into a barrier, but I suppose in the >Smart car it might be easier to shovel my remains into a body bag! That's what airbags are for! 8-) Craig. SignatureCraig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's Email: c900@lios.apana.org.au | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide! Alternate: saabonaut@gmail.com | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc. >>You hit a solid object at 70mph and your brain will splatter against >>the inside of your skull, your ribs will be rammed through all your [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > That's what airbags are for! 8-) Nope, airbags are to prevent massive contusion type injuries from hitting solid bits of car like the wheel or dashboard. Although to be fair you have a point in that hitting a deflating airbag is likely to help slow the head down better. I think it's amazing that by the time my head hits an airbag it has already fully inflated and is now deflating under the weight of my body....if only Henry Ford had been alive to see it! Grunff, accepted, the Smart is definitely the small car to be in at lower speeds, though I wouldn't bet a months wages on walking away from a 50mph crash. keep provide some degree of > bounce. > >>In fairness though Grunff I'd probably be equally dead in my C900 or >>any other vehicle going 70mph into a barrier, but I suppose in the >>Smart car it might be easier to shovel my remains into a body bag! I've done 70mph into a barrier, I spun out and hit the central reservation (probably doing somewhat less by then....) didn't feel a thing. Sadly the Saabs front end was obliterated, but the doors still opened fine and the car still started and drove fine! (until all oil pissed out from the remains of the cooler...) Of course the best thing is not to crash in the first place..... > keep provide some degree of >> bounce. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > still started and drove fine! (until all oil pissed out from the remains of > the cooler...) The A frames are +very+ strong on the C900, aren't they? > Of course the best thing is not to crash in the first place..... Too right, although if your combined collision is less than around 60 MPH, your C900 will be okay :) Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.