RX8 Tax

z00z

So I just bought a 06 mazda RX8 , I know this car is taxed as a 1.79 L because of the power it has even though its a 1.3L , and I know this question has been asked before in this forum 5 years ago , but recently I started noticing some rx8's on donedeal registered as 1.3 L , any ideas on this ???

thanks

PrettyBoy

Always wondered about this too, are there 2 different versions??

z00z

Yes there are , they come in different BHP's . I think they range from 189 to 245 BHP , but the one I have is the 189 BHP which i think is the lowest and its still registered as 1.79 L

dylbert

So we actually have 3 motor tax systems, pre and post 2008 and rx8 too?

galwaytt

dylbert wrote: »

So we actually have 3 motor tax systems, pre and post 2008 and rx8 too?

No. Mazda claim it's 1390cc iirc, but Revenue class it as 1790 because it's a rotary engine. I not sure anyone has one on 1.3 tax.... but there again. ..

Naturally insurance co's use a simpler multiplication factor: just multiply it by 2......1.3 x 2 = 2.6 :pac:

Alanstrainor

galwaytt wrote: »

No. Mazda claim it's 1390cc iirc, but Revenue class it as 1790 because it's a rotary engine. I not sure anyone has one on 1.3 tax.... but there again. ..

Naturally insurance co's use a simpler multiplication factor: just multiply it by 2......1.3 x 2 = 2.6 :pac:

Some people have been able to register them as 1.3 as far as I recall. It is a difficult process by all accounts.

pippip

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Some people have been able to register them as 1.3 as far as I recall. It is a difficult process by all accounts.

You go to mazda with a RF111 form (change of particulars) declaring the correct 1.3 details, mazda stamp it, then bring it to your tax office it gets taxed as 1.3

ARGINITE

There is a thread on the Irish Rotary club about this.

Basically you need to go to a Mazda dealer to get proof that the engine is a 1.3 and get them to sign a forum that you get from the tax office, thread on the rotary club explains it better.

dylbert

galwaytt wrote: »

No. Mazda claim it's 1390cc iirc, but Revenue class it as 1790 because it's a rotary engine. I not sure anyone has one on 1.3 tax.... but there again. ..

Naturally insurance co's use a simpler multiplication factor: just multiply it by 2......1.3 x 2 = 2.6 :pac:

But technically under the pre 2008 cc system should be paying as a 1390cc, they don't classify turbo cars in higher cc bands for having more horsepower so why do it with rotary's.

Was it the same story with the rx7?

Alanstrainor

pippip wrote: »

You go to mazda with a RF111 form (change of particulars) declaring the correct 1.3 details, mazda stamp it, then bring it to your tax office it gets taxed as 1.3

I remember speaking to an RX8 owner, at a boards meet and they said it wasn't as straight forward and it depended on the MTO you went to. However, this is all from memory rather than first hand experience!

One of the crazier tax blunders in this country, doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

GL scrappy

There has been some debate as to the actual displacement of a 13b rotary engine (rx7 & rx8),
something to do with the amount of rotations of the shaft per cycle, something I can't fully get my head around.

Mazda have always rated the engines at 1308cc, the Irish government at some stage decided to rate them at 1744cc (1308 x 4/3).
The British government rated them at 2616, which is probably the reason insurance companies here treat them as such.

In my opinion, cc based motor tax makes as much sense as charging income tax based on what you eat.

Interslice

If you look at how wankel works it does kind of make sense. It would be like if a standard engine was producing power for half of the exhaust stroke too effectively increasing the cc by 50%. At least there's a way round it though . I'd keep it quite, they seem to be on the loophole hunt lately.

Guy:Incognito

pippip wrote: »

You go to mazda with a RF111 form (change of particulars) declaring the correct 1.3 details, mazda stamp it, then bring it to your tax office it gets taxed as 1.3

So why didnt mazda register them as 1.3 in the begining? Theyd probably have shifted loads more.

enviro

dylbert wrote: »

Was it the same story with the rx7?

I'm Interested in that as well...

bazz26

Would it really have been a deal breaker for most owners if it was classed as 1.8 or 1.3? Motor tax would hardly be a huge factor in owning/running a RX-8?

cerastes

bazz26 wrote: »

Would it really have been a deal breaker for most owners if it was classed as 1.8 or 1.3? Motor tax would hardly be a huge factor in owning/running a RX-8?

well, If I knew I could get one for 1.3 tax, Id have considered it, when I had the money, any help would have been a help.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

cerastes wrote: »

well, If I knew I could get one for 1.3 tax, Id have considered it, when I had the money, any help would have been a help.

Sure the difference between 1.3 and 1.8 tax is only a couple of hundred. And sure that'd barely even pay for the pre purchase compression check - let alone anything else!

felimd

pippip wrote: »

You go to mazda with a RF111 form (change of particulars) declaring the correct 1.3 details, mazda stamp it, then bring it to your tax office it gets taxed as 1.3

Only if they don't double check with Revenue. If they do you'll get a long convoluted letter explaining their calculations of 1.744L, quoting Felix Wankel's book, "Rotary PIston Engines".

Quoting that letter:

"For every 2 revolutions of a rotory-piston (displacement of 654cc each), there are 3 revolutions of the output shaft. The number of revolutions of the output shaft for 1 revolution of the rotory-piston is therefore 1.5. Half of this number is .75 The cylinder capacity therefore, for registration purposes, is 654cc divided by .75, multiplied by 2, giving 1744cc"

I could never work out why they divided the 1.5 by half.

galwaytt

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So why didnt mazda register them as 1.3 in the begining? Theyd probably have shifted loads more.

I distinct remember Monaghans in Galway having a placard on the window of a new one in the showroom touting it as a 1.3.

MetzgerMeister

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So why didnt mazda register them as 1.3 in the begining? Theyd probably have shifted loads more.

Because the government would not accept that it was a 1.3 due to the power output. The government wanted it taxed as a 2.6 (not really a mathematical calculation with power ratio in mind but just double what Mazda said) and Mazda obviously wanted it as 1.3. This dispute delayed the RX8's introduction to the Irish market for a full year.

bazz26 wrote: »

Would it really have been a deal breaker for most owners if it was classed as 1.8 or 1.3?

You're forgetting bazz, this is Ireland

Physically, the rotary engine is a 1.3 (2 x 654cc chambers). As was said, for every revolution of the rotors (lol at rotor pistons), you have 3 revolutions of the output shaft. Each face of the rotors gives 1 revolution of this shaft.

I know of people who have gotten the change of engine form, filled it out (leaving the engine number section blank), gone to a Mazda dealer for them to stamp, then gone to a tax office to get the car registered as a 1.3.

This is probably the only situation where "1.3 on the logbook" actually makes good sense!

Also let's not forget the cool factor of the rotary engine only having 3 moving parts compared to a piston engine which has hundreds!

djimi

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Sure the difference between 1.3 and 1.8 tax is only a couple of hundred. And sure that'd barely even pay for the pre purchase compression check - let alone anything else!

Exactly. If a couple of hundred quid a year in tax is a deal breaker then chances are you cant afford to run a car like an RX8 either way!

dantastic

I'm going to have a go at this with my RX pretty soon. Tax difference is what, 300p/a? To be fair, the tax on it is not that bad at all considering the performance out of it!

And if you consider the fuel consumption I would dare to say anyone happy to put up with the fuel consumption is more than willing to foot the tax bill as well.

As for their calculations. They are kindof right in what they are saying in therms of the engine. But it really just sounds like back tracking as they realize their system is a load of ****.

Anan1

felimd wrote: »

Only if they don't double check with Revenue. If they do you'll get a long convoluted letter explaining their calculations of 1.744L, quoting Felix Wankel's book, "Rotary PIston Engines".

Quoting that letter:

"For every 2 revolutions of a rotory-piston (displacement of 654cc each), there are 3 revolutions of the output shaft. The number of revolutions of the output shaft for 1 revolution of the rotory-piston is therefore 1.5. Half of this number is .75 The cylinder capacity therefore, for registration purposes, is 654cc divided by .75, multiplied by 2, giving 1744cc"

I could never work out why they divided the 1.5 by half.

Is it because they consider it to have two pistons?

felimd

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

(lol at rotor pistons)

Actually that's how Felix Wankel himself referred to them, hence the title of his book Rotary Piston Engines.

MetzgerMeister

felimd wrote: »

Actually that's how Felix Wankel himself referred to them, hence the title of his book Rotary Piston Engines.

Why would you listen to him?? He hadn't a clue what he was on about!!! :pac:

Anan1

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

Why would you listen to him?? He hadn't a clue what he was on about!!! :pac:

Maybe it's like quantum mechanics, if you think you understand it you don't..

bazz26

cerastes wrote: »

well, If I knew I could get one for 1.3 tax, Id have considered it, when I had the money, any help would have been a help.

I think you are missing my point. There is about €300 in the difference between the two tax bands per year. This is minuet in comparison to the other running costs of the RX-8 such as fuel consumption, etc so if €300 extra per year in tax is a line you are not willing to cross then forget about a RX-8 altogether.

Ardennes1944

These RX8 threads kill me inside, still want one

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Ardennes1944 wrote: »

These RX8 threads kill me inside, still want one

That and the fact that they can be got for 4k... :P

Ardennes1944

Precisely! Still never driven one

muckwarrior

bazz26 wrote: »

I think you are missing my point. There is about €300 in the difference between the two tax bands per year. This is minuet in comparison to the other running costs of the RX-8 such as fuel consumption, etc so if €300 extra per year in tax is a line you are not willing to cross then forget about a RX-8 altogether.

It depends really. If you're using it as a daily driver then you're correct, but if you just want one as a weekend car then the €300pa wouldn't be an insignificant amount of the ownership cost.

PrettyBoy

These are relatives bargains now but what's the story with the engine in them, I heard it requires a full rebuild at some point? Anyone know the main reason why most are cheap and don't sell too easily?

Ardennes1944

PrettyBoy wrote: »

These are relatives bargains now but what's the story with the engine in them, I heard it requires a full rebuild at some point? Anyone know the main reason why most are cheap and don't sell too easily?

Oh god, please search previous rx8 threads for this info! :pac:

bazz26

muckwarrior wrote: »

It depends really. If you're using it as a daily driver then you're correct, but if you just want one as a weekend car then the €300pa wouldn't be an insignificant amount of the ownership cost.

But that applies to any car that isn't a classic. €300 p/a difference in motor tax per year just seems like a silly factor to rule buying a car in or out imo.

cerastes

bazz26 wrote: »

I think you are missing my point. There is about €300 in the difference between the two tax bands per year. This is minuet in comparison to the other running costs of the RX-8 such as fuel consumption, etc so if €300 extra per year in tax is a line you are not willing to cross then forget about a RX-8 altogether.

I have forgotten about it altogether
But, It would have tempted me as a second car years ago

z00z

Yeah the 1.8 engine is definitely not a deal breaker but why not pay for a 1.3 and save 300 if u can ?

Thanks guys for the useful info , I'll try the change of engine form and see how I get on

Dermo123

Ardennes1944 wrote: »

Oh god, please search previous rx8 threads for this info! :pac:

Check out the road tax on this one. Has to be the most sale proof RX-8 in the country

http://cars.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/mazda-rx-8-40th-anniversary/5629572

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Dermo123 wrote: »

Check out the road tax on this one. Has to be the most sale proof RX-8 in the country

http://cars.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/mazda-rx-8-40th-anniversary/5629572

FCUK
2350 per year to tax it
WOW :eek:

bazz26

The high number on the reg would also suggest it is an import so someone paid a fair chunk of VRT on that too.

Dermo123

bazz26 wrote: »

The high number on the reg would also suggest it is an import so someone paid a fair chunk of VRT on that too.

Just checked that there, over €5k. Surely they did a bit of research beforehand into VRT and road tax???

bazz26

The fact that they landed and registered it here would suggest VRT/motor tax wasn't an issue for them initially anyway.

CiniO

bazz26 wrote: »

The fact that they landed and registered it here would suggest VRT/motor tax wasn't an issue for them initially anyway.

I'd say most likely they used VRT exemption when changing residency.
No way someone would fork 5k for car which is worth now 5k (if so).

dantastic

Best would be to try to sell that one over in the UK. It's a special edition and highly sought after.

galwaytt

bazz26 wrote: »

The fact that they landed and registered it here would suggest VRT/motor tax wasn't an issue for them initially anyway.

True, and 68k miles in a short period means they had the €€,€€€ for the petrol as well !! :eek:

jenizzle

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Some people have been able to register them as 1.3 as far as I recall. It is a difficult process by all accounts.

I have my RX8 taxed as a 1.3. It wasn't a very difficult process at all, but I think I was one of the lucky ones. Some Mazda dealers refused to sign the RF111 form.

MetzgerMeister

bazz26 wrote: »

The high number on the reg would also suggest it is an import so someone paid a fair chunk of VRT on that too.

It has to be an import because the last ones sold in Ireland were early 2008 models sold before the emissions based tax system came into effect.

z00z

jenizzle wrote: »

I have my RX8 taxed as a 1.3. It wasn't a very difficult process at all, but I think I was one of the lucky ones. Some Mazda dealers refused to sign the RF111 form.

Can you tell me which mazda dealer you went to ? cause I tried the one in finglas and he told me the same crap about the car being powerful and that they've never done something like that

btkm8unsl0w5r4

I don't see the problem. The cc based system was based on conventional piston engines, the calculation of a relative displacement is fair enough, trying to get around it is very Irish indeed. The 2.7 on the insurance is comical these days as it produces nowhere near enough power for that.

Shame there is no torque based system you could tax it as a lawnmower