Displacement Tax....

[ghost]

Any of you ever heard of this?

Engine displacement tax could convince automakers to focus on smaller powerplants

Holy long link... I read something a while ago that basically said one of the reasons all the car manufactures are researching and building smaller power plants is some countries have a "displacement tax" on 3.X size engines and bigger. That article is from 2010 has anyone else read anything more recent on this? Sounds like a bad idea to me.

 

[drkelly]

Never heard of it. Sounds like a terrible idea.

 

[shelby27604]

That has been the standard in Europe for some time now, this is why early Ferrari engines have 12 cylinders and only displace 2992 CC although I believe that the tax was not strictly on 3.xx plus sized engines, I think you paid taxes based on engine displacement regardless.

 

[Scooter402]

That has been the standard in Europe for some time now, this is why early Ferrari engines have 12 cylinders and only displace 2992 CC although I believe that the tax was not strictly on 3.xx plus sized engines, I think you paid taxes based on engine displacement regardless.

Well damn. I always thought that was just so they'd sound like a pissed off guido hornet.










p.s. -- I married a meatball, so I can say it without shame.

 

[ghost]

That has been the standard in Europe for some time now, this is why early Ferrari engines have 12 cylinders and only displace 2992 CC although I believe that the tax was not strictly on 3.xx plus sized engines, I think you paid taxes based on engine displacement regardless.

That might be what I read about. I've been trying to find that article I read but my google skills aren't that good or it was removed. So Europe has it now and from what I read so does China.

 

[Loudmouthbass]

Japan to overhaul auto taxes as industry transforms.

Japan currently has three types of auto taxes. Owners pay a 3% tax on the purchase price when they buy a car, an annual automobile tax based on engine displacement and a weight tax at inspections required once every two years.

 

[shelby27604]

Seems like a tax created by someone who knows very little about how automobiles work, the US gas guzzler tax makes more sense.I doubt that a 3.0l V12 Ferrari gets better fuel economy than a 6.0l V8.

Fun fact, the gas guzzler tax only applied to the automatic GTO in 2004/06 the T56 version didn't get taxed.

AFAIK it is not applied to truck or SUV's.

 

[LBarr2002]

Seems like a tax created by someone who knows very little about how automobiles work, the US gas guzzler tax makes more sense.I doubt that a 3.0l V12 Ferrari gets better fuel economy than a 6.0l V8.

Fun fact, the gas guzzler tax only applied to the automatic GTO in 2004/06 the T56 version didn't get taxed.

AFAIK it is not applied to truck or SUV's.

Because skip shift? I test drove a camaro that the 4th gear synchros were shot because apparently previous owner couldn't master that 1-4 shift.

 

[shelby27604]

I know the F-body and the Vette had the 1-4 shift (a second gear lock that pushes you into 4th). I can't remember if the GTO got it or not.
GM did the best with what they had, spirited driving removed the lockout feature, it was setup to only function under conditions that mimicked the EPA test cycle.....previous owner of the Camaro probably drove it like an old lady too much.

 

[Fabrik8]

I read something a while ago that basically said one of the reasons all the car manufactures are researching and building smaller power plants is some countries have a "displacement tax" on 3.X size engines and bigger.

That's one of the reasons. The other reasons have to do with friction and volumetric efficiency, both of which impact fuel economy. Fuel economy is important to automakers.

 

[RatLabGuy]

Seems like a tax created by someone who knows very little about how automobiles work, the US gas guzzler tax makes more sense.I doubt that a 3.0l V12 Ferrari gets better fuel economy than a 6.0l V8.

Fun fact, the gas guzzler tax only applied to the automatic GTO in 2004/06 the T56 version didn't get taxed.

AFAIK it is not applied to truck or SUV's.

And even then, it really isn't about momentary consumption, its about long-term average consumption.
E.g. if I have an inefficient giant motor that runs for 20 hours a year, thats still less pollution than a much smaller better thing that runs 1,000 hrs a year.

Hence, best tax is on actual consumption, not design. Like... I don't know... taxing the gas?

 

[ghost]

And even then, it really isn't about momentary consumption, its about long-term average consumption.
E.g. if I have an inefficient giant motor that runs for 20 hours a year, thats still less pollution than a much smaller better thing that runs 1,000 hrs a year.

Hence, best tax is on actual consumption, not design. Like... I don't know... taxing the gas?

Wait taxes making sense? Nah.....

That's one of the reasons. The other reasons have to do with friction and volumetric efficiency, both of which impact fuel economy. Fuel economy is important to automakers.

Fuel economy because of epa fuel economy standards I would assume which is thanks to CARB last time I looked at all that BS. But yet as a diesel lover we have few diesel options out there. And of course the diesels fuel cast more even though everything I have read says it cost less to refine.

 

[Ron]

Wait taxes making sense? Nah.....




Fuel economy because of epa fuel economy standards I would assume which is thanks to CARB last time I looked at all that BS. But yet as a diesel lover we have few diesel options out there. And of course the diesels fuel cast more even though everything I have read says it cost less to refine.

CAFE
CARB is the California Air Resource Board.
Epa ia Federal.
CAFE standards fawk automakers.

Dont get me started on NSPS, RICE NESHAP, and associated lunacy