Road Fund Licence

[Benzowner]

Having a discussion last evening over a few beers regarding the Which Report on actual consumption figures compared to manufacturers claimed figures. Needless to say claimed figures are slightly exaggerated. So, if actual fuel consumption figures are true, would this mean that the CO emissions would also be low and hence we may expect a rise in the road fund licence.

On another note, I can remember reading either on here or in a brochure that changing wheels can have an effect of road fund licence. Tries searching but can't find it anywhere.

 

[whitenemesis]

Yes, if you spec bigger/wider wheels as an option on a new car you can push the RFL to the next level.

 

[wongl]

The road fund licence is based on the CO figure stated on the COC issued by the manufacturer at build time. So for example my A180 Classic has a lower CO figure compared to my A180 Avantgarde which resulted in a lower tax band for my Classic. This is because the Classic was factory built with narrower tyres.

As far as I know, despite fitting narrower (steel wheels with winter tyres) on my Avantgarde, it doesn't follow that I can pay a lower road fund licence for my Avantgarde. So it would follow that should I upgrade the wheels and tyres on my Classic to a wider profile, its road fund licence will not be effected under the current method of road fund licence banding.

 

[whitenemesis]

Correct. RFL is set at manufacture. If you spec the car with wide wheels the highest band applies.

Simple answer spec the standard, narrower wheels and upgrade latter. After advising your insurer of course. RFL will not change.

 

[E270 Owner]

Didn't know it was still called Road Fund Licence

Thought it was called Vehicle Tax now ?


https://www.gov.uk/calculate-vehicle-tax-rates












.

 

[whitenemesis]

Costs the same whatever you want to call it .....

 

[Stratman]

The Fiat Panda Eco drops a duty band by fitting narrower tyres and not offering A/C as standard.

Every little helps...

 

[M12MKD]

Depends on the manufacturer and if it's dealer fit or factory fit. For example Skoda have the same co2 regardless if you go for the bigger option wheels or not. Obviously dealer fit (or your own fit) do not increase the co2 banding.

Anyway your question about rates, regardless of how much lower the co2 levels get it will only increase.

The tax man has no interest in saving the planet only what it he (or she) can tax you for.

 

[markjay]

In spite of what Which? say, there is nothing wrong with the manufacturers' official MPG figures.

As long as the testing is carried-out to the same standards, the figures are very helpful as comparative data.

It is impossible to predict actual MPG of a vehicle driven in traffic, there are far too many variables affecting the end result. The important thing is that the consumer can compare consumption figures between two different vehicles.

Which? should have used the space they allocated to the MPG figures article to simply explain to potential buyers how to read and understand new car data.

 

[markjay]

On reflection, perhaps where the EU got it wrong is that they called this MPG in the first place.

They could have come-up with a unitless scale - say 1 to 100 - and convert the MPG testing data to these units.

So a car will be rated as say 66 for Urban, 83 for Extra-Urban, etc. Another car will be rated at 72 and 91, so will be more economical.

This will be helpful to new buyers without attracting the wrath of consumer organisations.

Similar to what EU have recently done for traction rating on tyres.

 

[E55BOF]

"The figures are very helpful as comparative data".

Markjay is absolutely spot-on.

What they are NOT terribly helpful for is as an indication of what fuel consumption a driver will get from a particular model... except that it will almost invariably be much less than the 'official' figures might suggest!

 

[219]

Didn't know it was still called Road Fund Licence

Thought it was called Vehicle Tax now ?


https://www.gov.uk/calculate-vehicle-tax-rates












.

And there was me thinking it was Vehicle Excise Duty .

 

[Palfrem]

Time VED was binned and fuel taxes increased to (revenue neutral) cover it.

Then the ACTUAL emissions would be correctly taxed by fuel use. I paid £230 last year to drive my E36 the grand total of 500 miles. A Band B car could drive 25,000 miles and only pay £20. Putting out much more (...deadly?) CO2. Hardly fair.

Think of the saving in DVLA / Plod / Courts admin too.

 

[E270 Owner]

The simplest way to do it is tax at point of use.

If X pays £300 a year does 3000 miles
then Y pays the same £300 and does 30,000 hows that calculating a fair tax based on vehicle emissions ?

Surely get rid of Vehicle Tax and use toll roads to fairly distribute the cost of emissions and use lower fuel rates accordingly then tax the vehicle on actual road usage via toll payments.

 

[gIzzE]

"The figures are very helpful as comparative data".

Markjay is absolutely spot-on.

What they are NOT terribly helpful for is as an indication of what fuel consumption a driver will get from a particular model... except that it will almost invariably be much less than the 'official' figures might suggest!

I totally disagree and think you are both completely wrong on that.

They are not really a good comparison as the 90% of the test is done at 31mph, so unless you drive everywhere at 31mph they are not a good comparison between cars.


Perfect example is our last BMW X1 vs our current X3 that was a smallish 140bhp rwd manual vs a much bigger 220bhp AWD auto.

The X3 is geared completely differently to the manual X1, sit at 80mph and the X3 is seeing close to 55mpg, sit at 80mph in the X1 and it is struggling to get above 40mpg.

My old 3.2 V6 petrol Quattro A6 Avant auto used to see 41mpg sitting at 70mph, my little Toyota Aygo used to see low 30s sitting at the same speed.
Official combined figures were 25mpg for the A6 and 62mpg for the Aygo.
Someone who sits on the motorway alot would be very disappointed jumping from the Audi to the Toyota.



I always use the US figures, far more realistic as they are done with more realistic conditions that actually replicate how people use cars.

The EU figures should be banned, as people don't know how they are calculated. To be fair I would guess the vey nature we are a car forum and hardly on here get it, you can't expect the general car buyer to.

It needs to change.

 

[markjay]

I totally disagree and think you are both completely wrong on that.

They are not really a good comparison as the 90% of the test is done at 31mph, so unless you drive everywhere at 31mph they are not a good comparison between cars.

Perfect example is our last BMW X1 vs our current X3 that was a smallish 140bhp rwd manual vs a much bigger 220bhp AWD auto.

The X3 is geared completely differently to the manual X1, sit at 80mph and the X3 is seeing close to 55mpg, sit at 80mph in the X1 and it is struggling to get above 40mpg.

My old 3.2 V6 petrol Quattro A6 Avant auto used to see 41mpg sitting at 70mph, my little Toyota Aygo used to see low 30s sitting at the same speed.
Official combined figures were 25mpg for the A6 and 62mpg for the Aygo.
Someone who sits on the motorway alot would be very disappointed jumping from the Audi to the Toyota.

I always use the US figures, far more realistic as they are done with more realistic conditions that actually replicate how people use cars.

The EU figures should be banned, as people don't know how they are calculated. To be fair I would guess the vey nature we are a car forum and hardly on here get it, you can't expect the general car buyer to.

It needs to change.

I don't disagree with you, but my point is that it is not possible to provide MPG figures that will be close to those that individual buyers will experience, because of the huge variation in traffic conditions, tyre pressures, engine temperature, driving style, car load, etc etc.

If they worked out a simple numerical scale instead of calling it 'MPG', and ensured that the testing was valid, then this is all you need to know - that car A is 20% more economic than car B, etc.

 

[gIzzE]

The US test gives some pretty accurate results...

Detailed Test Information

Take the Mercedes E250 as an example....

US...
E250 BlueTEC Clean Diesel - Sedan | Mercedes-Benz

33.6mpg City
50.4mpg Highway
(Converted to UK gallons)

UK...
Mercedes-Benz UK - Model information - Technical data

47.9mpg Urban
65.7mpg Extra Urban



One buyer is going to be pretty pleased with the accuracy of their new car, one is going to join a forum to ask why he is not getting anywhere near the published figures.

MPG is fine, but we need a City figure and a Motorway figure, not extra urban that means nothing in todays world.