are there incentives to buy hybrid lexus

cantdecide

i don't really mean the prius, i'm more concerned about the likes of the GS430h. as the title suggests, are there any tax incentives for a relative of mine who is a company exec to go for a hybrid exec car? it will be a private car but used in connection with work. so it's not a company car.

would there be incentives to the company if it were a company car?

unkel

All Lexus hybrids get a 50% discount on the VRT

Seth Brundle

The revenue site states:

Hybrid Electric Vehicles.

50% of the VRT payable or paid may be remitted or repaid in respect of certain series production (originally manufactured) hybrid electric vehicles. A hybrid electric vehicle is a vehicle that derives its power from a combination of an electric motor and an internal combustion engine and is capable of being driven on electric propulsion alone for a material part of its normal driving cycle.

Flexible Fuel Vehicles

"50% of the VRT payable or paid may be remitted or repaid in respect of certain series production (originally manufactured) flexible fuel vehicles. A flexible fuel vehicle is a vehicle that can achieve vehicle propulsion from an engine that is capable of using a blend of ethanol and petrol where such blend contains a minimum of 85% ethanol."

The lexus site doesn't mention the GS430h (only GS430 €98195) but mentions the GS450h (€84757- retail price includes 50% reduction in VRT of €13,568. Full retail excluding VRT refund is €98,325).

zilog_jones

kbannon wrote:

A hybrid electric vehicle ... is capable of being driven on electric propulsion alone for a material part of its normal driving cycle.

Does that mean things like the Honda Insight are excluded from this? AFAIK it can never be driven by the electric motor alone.

Seth Brundle

IIRC the only hybrids are the various Lexus models and the prius.

unkel

The Honda Civic hybrid also gets a 50% VRT discount. Honda.ie

Tipsy Mac

If they seriously wanted people driving hybrids they would 0%VAT and 0%VRT them.

Mc-BigE

unkel wrote:

The Honda Civic hybrid also gets a 50% VRT discount. Honda.ie

slightly off topic, but its interesting how the government class the Honda Civic hybrid as 1.3 Litre for Road tax when it has the power of 1.8L.
But at the same time class the 1.3Litre Mazda RX8 rotary engine as a 2.6L for road tax.

Biro

True. And biofuel cars get a 50% discount, but only if they came from the manufacturer. If you pay a few grand to convert your own, you get squat.
Hybrids are over rated anyway, their carbon footprint is actually higher than some normal cars over the entire lifespan of the car, thanks to the production of them and the small enough lifespan of the electric motors.
Biofuels are the real stopgap till we're running on hydrogen or something.

Biro

Mc-BigE wrote:

slightly off topic, but its interesting how the government class the Honda Civic hybrid as 1.3 Litre for Road tax when it has the power of 1.8L.
But at the same time class the 1.3Litre Mazda RX8 rotary engine as a 2.6L for road tax.

I think they have it down as a 1.7 litre for tax, but Hibernian have it listed as a 2.6 for insurance purposases.

JHMEG

Mc-BigE wrote:

slightly off topic, but its interesting how the government class the Honda Civic hybrid as 1.3 Litre for Road tax when it has the power of 1.8L.
But at the same time class the 1.3Litre Mazda RX8 rotary engine as a 2.6L for road tax.

The RX-8 has nowhere near the fuel economy of a 1.3 litre, whereas the Civic has the economy of a 1-litre (or less). The tax on the Civic should be lowered IMHO (or abolished) to encourage more ppl to drive them.

New Civic Hybrid can be driven by electric motor alone, whereas the older Civic IMA and Insight cannot. Tho with both of those the petrol engine will switch off when you are coming to a stop, and start up again when you put the car in gear.

@Biro: how short is the lifespan of the electric motor, or are you only guessing?

Biro

I read it in some car mag, and on some website somewhere else too. Can't think of either resource, but I'll post up when I find it. I shouldn't believe all I read though, maybe they last a long time.
I did see somewhere that someone had calculated the overall carbon footprint of a prius compared to something like a corolla and it faired out worse in the projected lifespan of both.

jimogr

Biro wrote:

I read it in some car mag, and on some website somewhere else too. Can't think of either resource, but I'll post up when I find it. I shouldn't believe all I read though, maybe they last a long time.
I did see somewhere that someone had calculated the overall carbon footprint of a prius compared to something like a corolla and it faired out worse in the projected lifespan of both.

Is this it:
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

It looks at the cost per mile of a car, everything from production to disposal - the hybrids do not do well. I think a large part of this is the environmental impact of producing the batteries.

Hybrids are good at moving the emissions from one part of the world to another - but overall, in some cases can have up to 3 times the impact of a regular petrol car.

Report looks at US spec cars.

unkel

Interesting article / survey, jimogr

jimogr wrote:

the hybrids do not do well

For anyone that doesn't feel like checking out the link, the figures for small hybrids like the Prius and the Civic are similar to those of large SUVs, large premium saloons and high-end sport cars

Mc-BigE

JHMEG wrote:

The RX-8 has nowhere near the fuel economy of a 1.3 litre, whereas the Civic has the economy of a 1-litre (or less). The tax on the Civic should be lowered IMHO (or abolished) to encourage more ppl to drive them.

New Civic Hybrid can be driven by electric motor alone, whereas the older Civic IMA and Insight cannot. Tho with both of those the petrol engine will switch off when you are coming to a stop, and start up again when you put the car in gear.

@Biro: how short is the lifespan of the electric motor, or are you only guessing?

I wasn't comparing MPGs of both cars, just the road tax, but i do agree with you, that ALL taxes, VRT,Motor-tax should be based on MPG/Emissions and not engine size.

FuzzyWuzzyWazza

Mc-BigE wrote:

slightly off topic, but its interesting how the government class the Honda Civic hybrid as 1.3 Litre for Road tax when it has the power of 1.8L.
But at the same time class the 1.3Litre Mazda RX8 rotary engine as a 2.6L for road tax.

According to ther HONDA site it has a 1.4l engine.

netwhizkid

This question is off topic but is there any incentives to buy vehicles that run of auto gas LPG or LNG? This thread put me thinking as they have lower emissions and the Auto Gas burns cleaner than Petrol.

The actual Gas here is rather expensive when compared to its Price in the UK, I know there is good incentives over there to run your car on auto Gas including a grant to help with the conversion.

JHMEG

FuzzyWuzzyWazza wrote:

According to ther HONDA site it has a 1.4l engine.

1339cc, or 1.339 Litres.

For marketing purposes that engine is called a 1.3 in the Civic IMA/Hybrid. Essentially the same engine minus the hybid stuff is in the Jazz, also 1339cc, but for marketing purposes it's called a 1.4.

zilog_jones

Mc-BigE wrote:

but i do agree with you, that ALL taxes, VRT,Motor-tax should be based on MPG/Emissions and not engine size.

I agree that engine size is certainly not the way to go, even if you don't consider emissions and fuel usage at all - they already know that rotary engines do not fit into the current scheme at all, and there's also pushrod engines which generally have to have a bigger displacement to deliver the same amount of power as an overhead camshaft, e.g. my 1.3 OHV Fiesta only delivers 60 bhp compared to the 1.25 DOHC available in the same Fiestas which does 75 bhp. Technically the 1.3 OHV engine is more comparable to most 1.0 litre OHC engines. However, that's a pretty bad example as the pushrod outputs similar CO2 emmissions and has roughly the same fuel consumption to the 1.25

But anyway, (I think I said this in some other thread a while ago) if they do bring in an emissions based tax it would be hideously counter-productive if they were taxed irrespective of the age of the cars and many other factors. Emissions have generally progressively improved over the years, especially in the past couple of decades. I think it would be unfair to say, tax an old lady's 1990 1-litre Micra as much as a modern equivalent in terms of CO2 emissions (which would probably be at least a 1.4 litre), despite the old lady driving the car very little (compared to many new cars which would be driven very regularly). Similarly, a 7 litre '69 Dodge Charger driven on the occasional Sunday isn't going to emit as much CO2 as a new car with a sanely-size engine that's doing 8000+ miles a year.

I think it will make a lot of people buy new cars or scrap their old cars just to keep taxes down. Recylcing old cars and manufacturing more new cars is going to be much worse for the environment than people keeping their old cars on the road for as long as feasible.

They need to at least tax them comparably to emissions standards at the time the car was built. But IMO taxing the fuel directly would be much more comparable to the actual emissions made, and will not penalise people with old cars too much.

This question is off topic but is there any incentives to buy vehicles that run of auto gas LPG or LNG? This thread put me thinking as they have lower emissions and the Auto Gas burns cleaner than Petrol.

Is it not a pain in the hole to actually find any place in Ireland that sells these fuels? I remember one of the Shells in Limerick used to sell LPG for a while, but I don't anyone does around here now. So it probably isn't very feasible to most people in this country.

FuzzyWuzzyWazza

JHMEG wrote:

1339cc, or 1.339 Litres.

For marketing purposes that engine is called a 1.3 in the Civic IMA/Hybrid. Essentially the same engine minus the hybid stuff is in the Jazz, also 1339cc, but for marketing purposes it's called a 1.4.

Not sure weather you are argueing with me or agreeing:D , but the point is that it is not a 1.8l

JHMEG

FuzzyWuzzyWazza wrote:

Not sure weather you are argueing with me or agreeing:D , but the point is that it is not a 1.8l

Nor is it just a 1.3L petrol engine! The electric motor is very torquey, with peak torque at 0 rpm. This doesn't quite match up with peak torque from the petrol engine, but overall the combination is more akin to an average 1.6L (not a 1.8L).

Neither agreeing or disagreeing with you:D Merely stating it's a 1.3L or 1.4L depending on which car it's in (Civic hybrid/Jazz).

ninty9er

zilog_jones wrote:

Is it not a pain in the hole to actually find any place in Ireland that sells these fuels? I remember one of the Shells in Limerick used to sell LPG for a while, but I don't anyone does around here now. So it probably isn't very feasible to most people in this country.

Texaco on the Dock Road does AFAIK

cantdecide

i think there is no single answer to this multi-faceted problem

i think the answer maybe lies in a little more tax on fuels, a little more tax for older cars, a little less tax on hybrids (the technology will become far better in future decades as they become more mainstream- lots of people swore diesels cars would never catch on either) and maybe incentives for conversions etc. and generally encouraging the common sense things like riding your bike to work.

i am a big petrolhead but i'm also a big environmentalist. lots of 3l cars will get 30-ish mpg. lots of 1.4s get 40-ish mpg, with the vast difference in road tax (since tax is the only weapon to punish the gas guzzler), it's not fair to victimise the tiny majority of lux/ sports car owners because of marginally heavier fuel consumption/ emmissions. the additional road tax alone is punishment enough surely. look in the uk and on the continent. we all have tiny bottom of the range cars compared to them. of course we must- the vrt has seen to that.

if tax is the only weapon for governments in this matter- between VAT, VRT and road tax, we in ireland should be knocking on mother natures door for a bloody refund!!! where is our public transport? we have a booming economy, we have a dispersed population, we have poor public transport it is completely unfair to hold the Irish motorist to further ransom. the sheer profiteering of the many governments haven't changed anything yet!

im my case, i have a '91 bmw 325 guzzler. but i hardly ever drive it maybe 4k miles a year. i am also saving it from being re-cycled. is it fair to punish me because i OWN it? i don't think so.

cantdecide

cantdecide wrote:

i am a big petrolhead but i'm also a big environmentalist. lots of 3l cars will get 30-ish mpg. lots of 1.4s get 40-ish mpg, with the vast difference in road tax (since tax is the only weapon to punish the gas guzzler), it's not fair to victimise the tiny majority of lux/ sports car owners because of marginally heavier fuel consumption/ emmissions. the additional road tax alone is punishment enough surely.

Some of these SUV behemoths get little over 15mpg in city driving. Why should the ordinary motorist foot the carbon bill of vehicles that in some cases are spitting out 3 times the amount of carbon per kilometer travelled?

If they are going to cut down on carbon emissions they should tax carbon emitted as well as taxing heavier those vehicles that are wasteful of it.

cantdecide

ronoc wrote:

15mpg in city driving.

that's an extreme case.

my point is that the lux car owner is the ordinary motorist and they're bracing themselves to be fleeced which is not fair. there are also lots of economical 2.0d rexton/ santa fe type suvs which are okay by me.:)

Seth Brundle

cantdecide wrote:

i think there is no single answer to this multi-faceted problem

There is - increased fuel taxes and none of this annual CC based crap.

cantdecide wrote:

i think the answer maybe lies in a little more tax on fuels, a little more tax for older cars, a little less tax on hybrids (the technology will become far better in future decades as they become more mainstream

Tax older cars? That means more new cars need to be made, more energy used, etc.
Most Irish people don't look after their car in the same way many other Europeans do and as such cars don't last as long. Couple this with the 'keep up with the jonses' attitude where thousands buy a new car, we are very wasteful.

cantdecide wrote:

i am a big petrolhead but i'm also a big environmentalist. lots of 3l cars will get 30-ish mpg. lots of 1.4s get 40-ish mpg, with the vast difference in road tax (since tax is the only weapon to punish the gas guzzler), it's not fair to victimise the tiny majority of lux/ sports car owners because of marginally heavier fuel consumption/ emmissions. the additional road tax alone is punishment enough surely. look in the uk and on the continent. we all have tiny bottom of the range cars compared to them. of course we must- the vrt has seen to that.

VRT serves no beneficial purpose other than to raise revenue. It doesn't do anything for the environment and actually brings a reduction in many cars safety features.
Relating a taxation fee to engine size will not stop gas gusslers - what about the Discovery that covers 100 km each year - should it pay the same as one that does 100,000km?
Consumption based taxes are the only way!

cantdecide wrote:

im my case, i have a '91 bmw 325 guzzler. but i hardly ever drive it maybe 4k miles a year. i am also saving it from being re-cycled. is it fair to punish me because i OWN it? i don't think so.

Hence my earlier points. I own a 2.5L car but if there was a viable alternative Id take it. However, Im also aware of the fact that with many BMWs the 2.5L is more economical than the 2L as it doesn't have to work as hard!

Biro

The 330i has a better official mpg figure than the 325i. Thats coming from the BMW website. Probably cause it's a newer engine.
Also, it's hardly fair to have an Evo taxed lower than a 2.2 diesel accord.

galwaytt

cantdecide wrote:

i don't really mean the prius, i'm more concerned about the likes of the GS430h. as the title suggests, are there any tax incentives for a relative of mine who is a company exec to go for a hybrid exec car? it will be a private car but used in connection with work. so it's not a company car.

would there be incentives to the company if it were a company car?

Short answer is no, in fact, the opposite.

First of all the VRT reduction is already included in the sale price. Secondly, it uses petrol, and therefore you cannot claim the VAT back on petrol used, unlike a diesel car. That's why companies run fleets of diesels - they get the VAT back. Maybe someone better informed can advise if the VAT on diesel cars is claimable by the co, but is the VAT on petrol ones (because that's what defines it's motive power).

Also, if it were a co car, there'd be BIK payable on the value of it, effectively as salary. I hope he's got a big salary to start with, cos the Lexus will eat into it, tax-wise.

cantdecide

kbannon wrote:

VRT serves no beneficial purpose other than to raise revenue. It doesn't do anything for the environment

we are agreed. the SUV driver isn't going to be forced to go out and plant trees as punishment!

more tax hasn't been a deterrent so far, has it?

in ireland, the motorist pays enormous sums of tax as it stands, if bertie won't divvy up for the environment or viable public treansport as an alternative, the motorist can't be blamed. the motorist has already done his bit.

i think industry has a lot to answer for.

it's like that episode of the simpsons where quimby kept making up taxes to charge the hollywood filmmakers. it's just that ludicrous. sheer profiteering.

Capt'n Midnight

If you are interested in the environment just get a diesel.

Most hybrids are not much greener to run than a diesel, especially when you take into account the fuel used in the refinery to crack/reform petrol.

If you take into account the enviromental impact of the batteries / electronics etc. then most hybrids are worse than diesels.

Can't find a link for the amount of oil used for heating in the cracking process but this gives some idea.
http://www.catalysis-ed.org/petrol/petrol2.htm

The greater effectiveness of catalytic cracking with zeolites rather than silica-alumina saved over 200 million barrels of crude oil in 1977

To produce enough petrol much of the fuel is reprocessed at high temperature and high pressure which use a lot of energy.

Seth Brundle

cantdecide wrote:

we are agreed. the SUV driver isn't going to be forced to go out and plant trees as punishment!

Out of curiosity why did you mention SUVs? I don't understand this fascination in the media/politics with SUVs and no mention of cars with comparable engines.
Why is there little mention in the media about the lack of sustainable freight transport. A large truck is getting single figure mpg yt the government are actively engouraging this method of distributon whilst pretty much actively discouraging rail goods transport. Also think of how much the government make directly from a truck each year!

E92

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

If you are interested in the environment just get a diesel.

I disagree. Its a well known fact that diesel cars cause local pollutants, and have a negative impact on local air quality. Why does Ken Livingstone make such a fuss about the air quality in London, even though he has the so called congestion charge? In Germany, where diesels are very popular, though in my experience, they're only in the ha'penny place compared to Portugal/ France/Italy, the government made a concerted effort to get the car companies to fit particulate filters as standard. Yes, I accept that they are infinately better than before, but don't ever forget that if a petrol and a diesel do exactly the same mpg, the diesel produces 13% more Carbon Dioxide per kilometre. The reason why diesels produce lower emissions in areas such as CO2 and CO is because of a complete lack of investment in petrols. Companies that invest in petrols can easily get low CO2 emissions; look at the soon to be launched BMW 118i; 47.9 mpg average, 140 g/km CO2 and the 320d; 49.6mpg average, 153 g/km CO2. I know I'm not comparing the same series car, but the 1er and the 3er are as close as you'll get:D

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Most hybrids are not much greener to run than a diesel, especially when you take into account the fuel used in the refinery to crack/reform petrol.

If you take into account the enviromental impact of the batteries / electronics etc. then most hybrids are worse than diesels.

I couldn't agree more, but anything that stops ecomentalists from complaing about cars has to be welcomed, if and only if for that reason. Hence why I said what I did about the good oul fashioned petrol.;)

JHMEG

E92 wrote:

look at the soon to be launched BMW 118i; 47.9 mpg average, 140 g/km CO2

For a bog standard petrol engine that mpg figure for the 118 sounds a little too good to be true. A quick bit of googling reveals 38.7mpg on the combined cycle. The CO2 emissions are equally as poor @ 176g/km.

http://www.carpages.co.uk/bmw/bmw_new_118i_04_09_04.asp
http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/bmw-118i-1004437.html

unkel

JHMEG wrote:

that mpg figure for the 118 sounds a little too good to be true

Yes it sounds very optimistic. Any links to back that up, E92?

Capt'n Midnight

E92 wrote:

I disagree. Its a well known fact that diesel cars cause local pollutants, and have a negative impact on local air quality.

Diesel didn't have lead. Also much of the smokiness is a thing of the past. Cyclones and filters have reduced the particle emission. The quality of the fuel is improving and bio-diesel is supposed to be better.

but don't ever forget that if a petrol and a diesel do exactly the same mpg, the diesel produces 13% more Carbon Dioxide per kilometre. The reason why diesels produce lower emissions in areas such as CO2 and CO is because of a complete lack of investment in petrols.

Oh dear.
Diesel is denser than petrol so more carbon per litre.
For the same weight it has more carbon and less hydrogen.
Not sure about the CO since lean burn petrol have up to 1% CO in the exhust ( maybe before the cat )
Because diesel is denser it has a higher energy density than petrol, so you would expect a better mpg from it. BUT the higher compression in a diesel engine is one of the reasons it's a more efficient heat engine in theory and in practice. Efficient in the sense that it uses the maximum % of the energy in the fuel. You will never make a petrol engine as efficient as a diesel engine, even using variable timing and all that good stuff. But you can do that with a diesel too

For large ships you have a choice of Diesel or Steam, trucks, locomotives, tractors, trawlers, construction equipment etc. are almost all Diesels. Considering how much cheaper petrol engines are there must be a reason, and it's only been like that for ages. With locomotives they generate electricity and use that to power electric motors on the wheels, and even still no one's thinking about building petrol trains.

Also it takes more energy (more CO2) to make petrol than diesel. Even Biodiesel is easier to separate out than the energy costs associated with distilling out ethanol , again more efficiencies

Petrol engines are cheaper, lighter, easier to start and more responsive. But electric motors have even better power to weight ratios and so easy to start and can be super responsive, only problem is the battery is heavy.

E92

unkel wrote:

Yes it sounds very optimistic. Any links to back that up, E92?

This one, Unkel http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/about/news/0,5126,1156___co-181209342,00.html tells us about the 118i, which as I said before, is soon to be launched i.e the 1 (to pardon the pun) they'll sell you at the moment does the figures JHMEG mentioned.
and this one http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/pricesandspecifications_technical_specs/0,4639,1156_149349913__bs-Mw%253D%253D%2540bb-M0xJ%2540bm-WjNTQg%253D%253D,00.html tells us about the 320d.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

For large ships you have a choice of Diesel or Steam, trucks, locomotives, tractors, trawlers, construction equipment etc. are almost all Diesels. Considering how much cheaper petrol engines are there must be a reason, and it's only been like that for ages. With locomotives they generate electricity and use that to power electric motors on the wheels, and even still no one's thinking about building petrol trains.

Also it takes more energy (more CO2) to make petrol than diesel. Even Biodiesel is easier to separate out than the energy costs associated with distilling out ethanol , again more efficiencies

Petrol engines are cheaper, lighter, easier to start and more responsive. But electric motors have even better power to weight ratios and so easy to start and can be super responsive, only problem is the battery is heavy.

Thanks for that Capt'n Midnight, for putting that much right in my mind anyway.I thought this was a forum about cars:D . Look, I wasn't, (and I'm sorry if this comes across as arrogant, I'm not meaning to be ) trying to say that petrol is always better than diesel, on any grounds. Of course nobody is trying to make a petrol powered train, that would be sheer lunacy. All I wanted to say was that for cars, if they're serious about the enviornment, that with high levels of investment, there's no reason why petrols couldn't offer fuel economy figures close enough to diesels. In my example of the 118i/320d, even though the diesel had almost 2 mpg of an advantage, it still produced 13g of CO2 more for every kilometre travelled than the 118i. If you travel 20,000 km(roughly 12,000 miles) a year you would save the earth of 260kg of CO2 with the 118, even though more fuel would have been used. The reason why diesels are better with heavy vehicles is because of all the torque a diesel has, which is a force that produces rotation i.e makes a vehicle move in the first place. I know its theres more to it than that, but lets not go there:) . That and the fact the even the highest revving diesel can only go to around 5,500 rpm; some petrols are only starting to get into their stride at 5,500 rpm. The importance of such a low rev limit is that theres less wear and tear on the engine at lower revs, meaning diesels can be more reliable and can last longer.

unkel

E92 wrote:

This one, Unkel http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/about/news/0,5126,1156___co-181209342,00.html tells us about the 118i, which as I said before, is soon to be launched i.e the 1 (to pardon the pun) they'll sell you at the moment does the figures JHMEG mentioned.
and this one http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/pricesandspecifications_technical_specs/0,4639,1156_149349913__bs-Mw%253D%253D%2540bb-M0xJ%2540bm-WjNTQg%253D%253D,00.html tells us about the 320d

I'd rather a link that didn't have the letters bmw in the url

Capt'n Midnight

E92 wrote:

there's no reason why petrols couldn't offer fuel economy figures close enough to diesels.

Absolutely , all they have to do is burn the petrol in a diesel engine.
...

The reason why diesels are better with heavy vehicles is because of all the torque a diesel has,

If you want more torque use a gear box.
Diesels also last longer because they have more metal in them to take the higher pressure.

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553622/Internal-Combustion_Engine.html

The efficiencies of good modern Otto-cycle engines range between 20 and 25 per cent (in other words, only this percentage of the heat energy of the fuel is transformed into mechanical energy).
...
The efficiency of the diesel engine, which is in general governed by the same factors that control the efficiency of Otto-cycle engines, is inherently greater than that of any Otto-cycle engine and in actual engines today is slightly over 40 per cent.

25% vs. 40%
That means petrol engines would have to extract 60% more energy from the fuel than they do at present. And even then you still don't make up for the losses in the refinery in re-forming other hydrocarbons to petrol.