Re-map and higher CO2?

Stevie Dakota

Just wondering what would happen if you did a remap and the NCT showed the car outside it's allowed range? A fail no doubt but then what?

Just curious.

Darsad

CO2 is not measured by the NCT CO is .
Most remaps make changes outside the rev range that the vehicles are tested for at NCT so i would imagine as long as you dont remove the cats you should be ok .

BrianD3

The g/km CO2 bears no relationship to the % CO measured in the NCT. I'm no expert on this but I'd imagine it would be completely impractical for the authorities to check the actual g/km CO2 that a used car is producing for taxation purposes. So it does open something of a can of worms. If you remap your car so it produces more CO2 and should be in a higher tax band, are you then committing fraud or evading tax? And you don't even have to remap the engine, a different set of wheels might also put it into a higher tax bracket.

conneem-TT

BrianD3 wrote: »

The g/km CO2 bears no relationship to the % CO measured in the NCT. I'm no expert on this but I'd imagine it would be completely impractical for the authorities to check the actual g/km CO2 that a used car is producing for taxation purposes. So it does open something of a can of worms. If you remap your car so it produces more CO2 and should be in a higher tax band, are you then committing fraud or evading tax? And you don't even have to remap the engine, a different set of wheels might also put it into a higher tax bracket.

A car does not produce the same amount of CO2 all of the time, you do not just stick a probe in the exhaust and get a realistic figure. The manufacturer figure is based on the average fuel consumption over the standardised test cycle and as CO2 emissions are relatively constant per litre of fuel burned they are proportional to fuel consumption. That is why they can not compare to the manufacturer's figure. Most cars on the road would only match the manufacturers figure if you matched the manufacturers stated fuel consumption.

Alot of the time a person's overall average fuel economy will get better with a remap as in everyday driving you will be using a relatively smaller proportion of the cars performance.

On a side note, what is it with people looking for ways to criminalise, if this ... should be that .. then are you committing . .

BrianD3

conneem-TT wrote: »

A car does not produce the same amount of CO2 all of the time, you do not just stick a probe in the exhaust and get a realistic figure. The manufacturer figure is based on the average fuel consumption over the standardised test cycle and as CO2 emissions are relatively constant per litre of fuel burned they are proportional to fuel consumption. That is why they can not compare to the manufacturer's figure. Most cars on the road would only match the manufacturers figure if you matched the manufacturers stated fuel consumption.

I know that, that's why I said it would be completely impractical.

On a side note, I hate when people try to criminalise someone.

Dunno what you mean there but if you're referring to my comment about fraud and tax evasion. If a person knowingly goes out and remaps their car so that it would produce, say, double the CO2 in an offical test than it did previously - is that acceptable?

conneem-TT

BrianD3 wrote: »

I know that, that's why I said it would be completely impractical.

Dunno what you mean there but if you're referring to my comment about fraud and tax evasion. If a person knowingly goes out and remaps their car so that it would produce, say, double the CO2 in an offical test than it did previously - is that acceptable?

But it just won't. Driving style will have much more effect on a cars emissions/km, i.e. someone that does not move through the gear smoothly and wrings out the lower gears ect..

Is it acceptable that some who owns a car that emits 180g/km* and does 10k km per year pays multiple amounts on emissions based tax than someone with a car that emits 120g/km* that travels 20k km per year?

*Over the average cycle of course

Matt Simis

BrianD3 wrote: »

Dunno what you mean there but if you're referring to my comment about fraud and tax evasion. If a person knowingly goes out and remaps their car so that it would produce, say, double the CO2 in an offical test than it did previously - is that acceptable?

OMG, who cares?
In the contect of automotives, its an arbitrary figure as explained invented largely as a taxation method. A bad batch of fuel, iffy service interval or merely driving the car different than the manufactures test could produce 2x or 3x the CO2. And the world will still turn.

BrianD3

Matt Simis wrote: »

OMG, who cares?

OMG the Irish State probably cares seeing as a large chunk of motor tax revenue is based on CO2 ratings.

In the contect of automotives, its an arbitrary figure as explained invented largely as a taxation method. A bad batch of fuel, iffy service interval or merely driving the car different than the manufactures test could produce 2x or 3x the CO2. And the world will still turn.

Doesn't change the fact that if your car would produce more CO2 under official test conditions after a remap or any other mods, you should be paying more tax. The principle is no different than increasing the cc of your engine and paying tax at a higher rate. It's just that it's much easier to remap a car than to alter the cc of a car.

Is it acceptable that some who owns a car that emits 180g/km* and does 10k km per year pays multiple amounts on emissions based tax than someone with a car that emits 120g/km* that travels 20k km per year?

It's open to debate whether it is acceptable but it is legal and doesn't constitute fraud or tax evasion.

BTW what's your opinion on Starlet Turbos with "1.3 on the logbook"?

shedweller

BrianD3 wrote: »

OMG the Irish State probably cares seeing as a large chunk of motor tax revenue is based on CO2 ratings.


Doesn't change the fact that if your car would produce more CO2 under official test conditions after a remap or any other mods, you should be paying more tax.

You would because higher CO2 will be the result of using more fuel, therefore paying more tax. So the government will be quite happy with you churning out more CO2. Although they may have to pay lip service to the greens about reducing it.
The abolition of motor tax and a suitable increase on fuel would remove this problem, while being revenue neutral etc. I'd say it's possible, it's just that there are more than likely some vested interests in keeping the system as it is.

Gumbo

BrianD3 wrote: »

BTW what's your opinion on Starlet Turbos with "1.3 on the logbook"?

should make no difference whats on the log book as long as it was insured properly.

my old Honda Integra Type R only have 1.8 vtec on the log book, but it was insured as a type R so the log book made no difference what so ever.

both the 1.8vtec and the type R so the motor tax is the same anyhow, same as the starlet, the 1.3 and the 1.3T share the same tax bands based on CC so the insurance is the important bit imo.

Eric Cartman

for the moment the car can be re-mapped without a different tax band , you can emmit all the re-mapped and retuned co2 goodness you want, Until there is a specific law against re-maps of im being told to plant a forest to make up for my 4x4s emissions id say NOBODY HAS TO CARE, tbh I dont care about the co2 output of my vehicle because its a commercial, and if we werent taxed based on co2 99% of people here wouldnt care either, its just more indymedia leftist hippy green party horseshít trying to stop people enjoying driving

BrianD3

kceire wrote: »

should make no difference whats on the log book as long as it was insured properly.

my old Honda Integra Type R only have 1.8 vtec on the log book, but it was insured as a type R so the log book made no difference what so ever.

both the 1.8vtec and the type R so the motor tax is the same anyhow, same as the starlet, the 1.3 and the 1.3T share the same tax bands based on CC so the insurance is the important bit imo.

OK that was a bad example, I forgot that the turbo was also a 1.3. That's an insurance issue as you say. I'm obvously talking about cars where the cc on the logbook is incorrect. Eg cars with replacement engines higher cc than the original but not declared.

Matt Simis

BrianD3 wrote: »

OMG the Irish State probably cares seeing as a large chunk of motor tax revenue is based on CO2 ratings.

Doesn't change the fact that if your car would produce more CO2 under official test conditions after a remap or any other mods, you should be paying more tax. The principle is no different than increasing the cc of your engine and paying tax at a higher rate. It's just that it's much easier to remap a car than to alter the cc of a car.

It's open to debate whether it is acceptable but it is legal and doesn't constitute fraud or tax evasion.

BTW what's your opinion on Starlet Turbos with "1.3 on the logbook"?

I could care less what the state wants, they could just as easily have a Window Washer tax tomorrow and it would be as legitimate an ask as counting an engines Cubic capacity or the CO2 level. And I still wouldnt be worrying about it or caring bout others. And you would be asking if someone added more cleaning ability to their windscreen "tax free", is that "illegal". Dont you see how ridiculous this all is?

Engine on Log Book different than in car? Why would that bother me? If the option to the owner is a) dont pay the tax increase but put in the better engine or b) dont change the engine and still dont pay the tax increase .... the NET effect is the same, it makes no difference to anyone but busy bodies. Regardless, it doesnt bother me what people do with their own taxes as long as the car is insured and not a danger to the public.

The fact people here are so conditioned to not even consider "why" we have taxes is sickening. Im not trying to go miles off topic here, but the majority of that tax intake is bailing out banks and other corrupt types, a decision that wasnt put forward to the people anyhow. Lets not delude outselves into thinking its for Children's Hospitals and an autobahn to get them there.


Looking forward to a tax on Silver car paint, Budget '12..



PS: More on topic, there is an assertion that remaps increase CO2 Emissions. Why is this? As already explained in detail, CO2 is a "rating" based on fuel consumption. Remaps usually (by way of torque increase and more efficient timing) reduce Fuel Consumption slightly. so CO2 would go down. So in your tax obsessed mindset, you should be asking for a Tax Rebate after a Remap.

shedweller

All this whole thing does is to highlight how ridiculous the current motor tax system is. The last one was equally silly.
I also have an issue with bailing out banks etc. but that is another story.
At the end of the day, the roads have to be built and sometimes repaired, whenever they could be bothered i suppose.
It's only fair that the users of said roads pay for them.

Matt Simis

shedweller wrote: »

All this whole thing does is to highlight how ridiculous the current motor tax system is. The last one was equally silly.
I also have an issue with bailing out banks etc. but that is another story.
At the end of the day, the roads have to be built and sometimes repaired, whenever they could be bothered i suppose.
It's only fair that the users of said roads pay for them.

Exactly and engine CC, CO2 output or um, Windscreen Washing ability have precisely zero relevance to wear on roads.
Lets not forget the guys in the Crewcab 4x4s with 5 seats, 3litre + engines paying what.. EUR250 a year in tax but doing 80k miles per year? And they are totally in their legal rights to do so.
Tax the usage.

Eric Cartman

Matt Simis wrote: »

Exactly and engine CC, CO2 output or um, Windscreen Washing ability have precisely zero relevance to wear on roads.
Lets not forget the guys in the Crewcab 4x4s with 5 seats, 3litre + engines paying what.. EUR250 a year in tax but doing 80k miles per year? And they are totally in their legal rights to do so.
Tax the usage.

its a good racket we have going and you leave it alone

BrianD3

Matt Simis wrote: »

Engine on Log Book different than in car? Why would that bother me? If the option to the owner is a) dont pay the tax increase but put in the better engine or b) dont change the engine and still dont pay the tax increase .... the NET effect is the same, it makes no difference to anyone but busy bodies.

Completely wrong, in case of a), the state loses revenue due to it and those who are tax compliant subsidise those who aren't. If I earn twice as much next year as I do this year but pay the same amount of income tax because I've fiddled the books - is anyone who has a problem with that also a "busybody".

PS: More on topic, there is an assertion that remaps increase CO2 Emissions Why is this? As already explained in detail, CO2 is a "rating" based on fuel consumption. Remaps usually (by way of torque increase and more efficient timing) reduce Fuel Consumption slightly. so CO2 would go down. So in your tax obsessed mindset, you should be asking for a Tax Rebate after a Remap.

I don't care what a remap "usually" does. But yes, if a remap does reduce CO2 there should be a reduction in tax payable.

conneem-TT

shedweller wrote: »

At the end of the day, the roads have to be built and sometimes repaired, whenever they could be bothered i suppose.
It's only fair that the users of said roads pay for them.

Problem is, it is a motor tax, not a road tax and it just goes into the council's coffers not all on roads, so the motorist is subsidising other services

Matt Simis

BrianD3 wrote: »

Completely wrong, in case of a), the state loses revenue due to it and those who are tax compliant subsidise those who aren't. If I earn twice as much next year as I do this year but pay the same amount of income tax because I've fiddled the books - is anyone who has a problem with that also a "busybody".

Lol, Ive heard that old tripe before. You didnt read it correctly. The state "looses revenue" in both A and B. There is no difference, that much is clear.

So in the case of A, John puts a 3.0litre engine in his 2.2litre Accord. Doesnt tell revenue. You continue to pay your tax. You are not however after subsidising his motor swap in any form at all. If you think you are, then you and all that use this argument should really look up what a subsidy is.
You cannot subsidise something that has no effect on you, no detriment to you, no cost to you and with no payment in service or finances. Infact this has nothing at all to do with you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidize

1.
to furnish or aid with a subsidy.
2.
to purchase the assistance of by the payment of a subsidy.
3.
to secure the cooperation of by bribery; buy over.

Also consider the stupidity of our system, Tim buys a 2008 BMW 530d, puts in 2007 2.5litre petrol engine. Technically he has reduced "CC" under 2007 regime but increased CO2 under the 2008 scheme. His car is now neither a 2007 or 2008 car. Both are meaningless, arbitrary numbers on a piece of paper. Tims burden on society has in no way changed.
Its madness and Tim would be well advised to say nothing IMO. I wont condemn anyone that doesnt sheepishly signup to stupidity as its the letter of the law.


Im not going to bother answering your tangential income tax fraud question till you answer the Washer fluid tax. Are you that guy, the one that will sign up to anything the authority dreams up then demands we all do, just cos you were told to?

Eric Cartman

at the end of the day if somebody remaps, or does an engine swap and doesnt declare it, it hurts nobody, the goverment gets more revenue from the fuel use if its an engine swap and VAT off the lads in the tuning company if its a remap , the car is still paying the tax it was originally declared for, the goverment isnt out of pocket because the EU dont know theres more cO2 so theres no more penalties, the only people this will actually affect is our kids kids kids kids kids kids kids budgies that wont have air to breath , and thats only if global warming and all this ozone **** is true , that one im still not sure on

conneem-TT

Eric Cartman wrote: »

. . . the only people this will actually affect is our kids kids kids kids kids kids kids budgies that wont have air to breath , and thats only if global warming and all this ozone **** is true , that one im still not sure on

And if the Global Warming thing is as they say it, the most environmental thing anyone can do is not have childeren, so two birds with one stone

BrianD3

Matt Simis wrote: »

Lol, Ive heard that old tripe before. You didnt read it correctly. The state "looses revenue" in both A and B. There is no difference, that much is clear.

I'm well capable of reading and what's more, I know the difference between lose and loose.

So in the case of A, John puts a 3.0litre engine in his 2.2litre Accord. Doesnt tell revenue. You continue to pay your tax. You are not however after subsidising his motor swap in any form at all. If you think you are, then you and all that use this argument should really look up what a subsidy is.
You cannot subsidise something that has no effect on you, no detriment to you, no cost to you and with no payment in service or finances. Infact this has nothing at all to do with you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidize

As a tax payer, tax evasion by others has a negative effect on me (less funding for services that I may use) and on society generally. As for cost to me, the money to fund services has to come from somewhere and if some individuals are not paying the correct amount of tax, the rest end up paying more. Simple enough for you?

Im not going to bother answering your tangential income tax fraud question till you answer the Washer fluid tax. Are you that guy, the one that will sign up to anything the authority dreams up then demands we all do, just cos you were told to?

No washer fluid tax has been introduced. In a democratic society, if the state decides to implement such a tax (highly unlikely) then I have to accept it.

But then I wouldn't expect somebody who says he "could [sic] care less what the state wants" to agree. Maybe you should piss off to some other state in that case.

Matt Simis

BrianD3 wrote: »

I'm well capable of reading and what's more, I know the difference between lose and loose.

You took time from your zealot like hunt for tax evasion to correct my spelling! :pac:

BrianD3 wrote: »

As a tax payer, tax evasion by others has a negative effect on me (less funding for services that I may use) and on society generally. As for cost to me, the money to fund services has to come from somewhere and if some individuals are not paying the correct amount of tax, the rest end up paying more. Simple enough for you?

"Simple enough" as that is, thats not the issue at hand at all is it? Specifically, you questioned remaps and engine swaps. Someone choosing to not pay the "correct" (ie more) tax does not mean you have to pay more tax to make up the shortfall, as their increased tax contribution never existed in the system, did it?
There simply is no issue here other than looking at others with begrudging eyes.

BrianD3 wrote: »

No washer fluid tax has been introduced. In a democratic society, if the state decides to implement such a tax (highly unlikely) then I have to accept it.

Lovely, youre like a little robot, send the command and it executes it! Id genuinely love to know all about what makes a person this way, the willingness you show to give up free will is intriguing.

BrianD3 wrote: »

But then I wouldn't expect somebody who says he "could [sic] care less what the state wants" to agree. Maybe you should piss off to some other state in that case.

I might or I might move as much "off the grid" as possible here. I wont be contributing to the variety of ineffective semi-state bodies but not breaking any laws either. For the record, despite you telling me to "piss off" as if Ive done something wrong, this is a theoretical conversation, I have all my cars taxed with the correct engine size declared. When you are at 5.6 litres, there is a certain.. cachet to people knowing it but even better when they know you pay for it too. Like my very own Hardwick Hall.

BrianD3

Matt Simis wrote: »

"Simple enough" as that is, thats not the issue at hand at all is it? Specifically, you questioned remaps and engine swaps. Someone choosing to not pay the "correct" (ie more) tax does not mean you have to pay more tax to make up the shortfall, as their increased tax contribution never existed in the system, did it?

You're still wrong. And even if I don't have to pay more, the actions of a tax evader may prevent me from legitimately paying less. Either way I lose out.

Go back to the example about the person who earns double their previous salary but decides to cheat the system and pay no more tax. They pay the same, the "extra" never existed in the system. But the state and other tax payers still lose out.

There simply is no issue here other than looking at others with begrudging eyes.

If pointing out tax evasion makes me a "begrudger" then so be it.

Lovely, youre like a little robot, send the command and it executes it! Id genuinely love to know all about what makes a person this way, the willingness you show to give up free will is intriguing.

In the case of a windscreen washer tax I would lobby against it but once the decision was made I'd accept it. There are plenty of laws and taxes I don't fully agree with but accept. If you can come up with a system where everybody is happy with every tax and every law - or better still some sort of utopian society that functions with no law and no taxes - then I'm all ears. Probably beyond the scope of the Motors forum.