Bang for your tax €

CountingCrows

Any thoughts on what cars have the best bhp to emissions ratio, i.e the most power you can get for the lowest emissions?

Ded_Zebra

CountingCrows wrote: »

Any thoughts on what cars have the best bhp to emissions ratio, i.e the most power you can get for the lowest emissions?

So i Take it that it's a post 2008 car you're looking for?

What kind of budget do you have?

traco

As we have no budget constarints I'd be suggesting this baby, 416hp and 71g/km



Total system output 306 kW (416 hp) at 5.500 1/min
Acceleration from 0 - 100 km/h (0 - 62 mph) 5.5 s
Top speed 270 km/h (167 mph)
Fuel consumption* Combined in l/100 km (mpg) 3.1 (91.1)
CO2 emissions in g/km 71

R.O.R

I did a list of these last year, but will be out of date now.

New Volvo S60 D4 with 181 bhp and 99g must be up there.

The Dagda

Tesla S

424bhp.
ZERO Emissions.
400km Range.

Anan1

The Dagda wrote: »

Tesla S

424bhp.
ZERO Emissions.
400km Range.

Electric power is not zero emissions.

conzy

Pre 08 RX8

CiniO

Anan1 wrote: »

Electric power is not zero emissions.

Car itself does not emit anything. That's what counts.

Anan1

CiniO wrote: »

Car itself does not emit anything. That's what counts.

To whom?

Anan1

OSI wrote: »

Given the thread is in relation to your tax €, it should be fairly obvious we are concerned with the emissions as measured by revenue for the calculation of tax.

Yeah, the Tesla is probably the most bang for the motor tax, and given the right power station, it might even be the most power you can get for the lowest emissions. But this nonsense about EVs being zero emissions gets on my tits - they're not.

CiniO

Anan1 wrote: »

Yeah, the Tesla is probably the most bang for the motor tax, and given the right power station, it might even be the most power you can get for the lowest emissions. But this nonsense about EVs being zero emissions gets on my tits - they're not.

Surely they are better than petrol cars, not even mentioning diesel.

While producing electricity might cause emissions (if made from fossil fuels), but there are two advantages.

1. Emissions are based in power plant, which might be located somewhere where no one wants to live anywhere. Car itself doesn't emit anything, so in places where it's driving (f.e. town centres, etc where people live) it's much cleaner.

2. Amount of emissions made for producing electricty is probably less than emissions caused by manufacturing petrol or diesel, not even mentioning emissions caused by burning those fuels in cars.

And obviously there are emissions free ways to produce electricty which makes electric cars even cleaner.

For me it's a big yes for electric cars when it comes to healthy climate.

So called - low emission diesels, which our government is supporting, are the worst, causing the most harmful emissions to be concentrated where people live and drive.

CiniO

Anan1 wrote: »

To whom?

To us, people who live in areas where those cars drive.

Anan1

CiniO wrote: »

To us, people who live in areas where those cars drive.

This was true before cats and DPFs, but a modern ICE is producing very little in the way of pollutants. It's really the CO2 that's doing the damage.

The Dagda

What about that Tesla S though?

424bhp
400km range
Less than 5 euro per "fill"
€120 per annum motor tax
ZERO emissions


I wonder what the maintenance costs for 30,000km per year would be?

Anan1

The Dagda wrote: »

ZERO emissions
ZERO motor tax

That's two wrongs now.

The Dagda wrote: »

I wonder what the maintenance costs for 30,000km per year would be?

In principle it should be lower than for an equivalent ICE, but you'd be stuck with the main dealer for a while at least.

CiniO

Anan1 wrote: »

This was true before cats and DPFs, but a modern ICE is producing very little in the way of pollutants. It's really the CO2 that's doing the damage.

CO2 is doing no damage to anyone directly. It's not poisonous. It won't make anyone sick.

Yes - it might cause a climate change like some people say, and it might have catastrophic consequences. But this might be in 50 years, maybe 100, maybe 1000 or maybe never. No one can be sure.

All I know is that cars that drive around me are mostly diesels (and mostly not that modern) and cause a really harmful pollution to air which I'm breathing.

Yes - newer cars are better with all eco stuff like DPFs, but they still do produce harmful exhausts. Diesel will always produce soot which is bad for anyone's lungs. And those modern diesels in 10 years will still be driving, but by then they will have all DPF cut, and will be even more harmful.

Interslice

CiniO wrote: »

CO2 is doing no damage to anyone directly. It's not poisonous. It won't make anyone sick.

Yes - it might cause a climate change like some people say, and it might have catastrophic consequences. But this might be in 50 years, maybe 100, maybe 1000 or maybe never. No one can be sure.

It has already caused climate change. Emissions restrictions aren't a preventative measure, they're trying to slow it down.

Anan1

CiniO wrote: »

CO2 is doing no damage to anyone directly. It's not poisonous. It won't make anyone sick.

Yes - it might cause a climate change like some people say, and it might have catastrophic consequences. But this might be in 50 years, maybe 100, maybe 1000 or maybe never. No one can be sure.

Might?? 50 years?? Climate change is real, it's happening now.

CiniO wrote: »

All I know is that cars that drive around me are mostly diesels (and mostly not that modern) and cause a really harmful pollution to air which I'm breathing.

Yes - newer cars are better with all eco stuff like DPFs, but they still do produce harmful exhausts. Diesel will always produce soot which is bad for anyone's lungs. And those modern diesels in 10 years will still be driving, but by then they will have all DPF cut, and will be even more harmful.

Unless you're standing on the quays all day I really don't think that you've much to worry about. Modern diesels are very clean, although people cutting off the DPFs do need to be dealt with.

CiniO

Interslice wrote: »

It has already caused climate change. Emissions restrictions aren't a preventative measure, they're trying to slow it down.

Anan1 wrote: »

Might?? 50 years?? Climate change is real, it's happening now.

Sorry, I didn't notice.
I'll be 32 soon, and I didn't notice any change in climate since I can remember.
What makes you think it's happening now?

Unless you're standing on the quays all day I really don't think that you've much to worry about. Modern diesels are very clean, although people cutting off the DPFs do need to be dealt with.

Yes, I live in very rural area so I don't need to worry too much, but people living in city centres should be worried by big fashion for diesels.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

CiniO wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't notice.
I'll be 32 soon, and I didn't notice any change in climate since I can remember.
What makes you think it's happening now?

Climate change is a myth perpetuated and used for various purposes by groups to whom it is in their interest to maintain the perpetuation of the myth.

CiniO wrote: »

Yes, I live in very rural area so I don't need to worry too much, but people living in city centres should be worried by big fashion for diesels.

Haha I have my 2.0d carina for about 2 weeks and the wall behind it is jet black already.

mickdw

Anan1 wrote: »

Might?? 50 years?? Climate change is real, it's happening now.

Really? Im far from convinced. Is it global warming or climate change today?. It seems the experts who so exactly knew what was happening 20 years ago are not quite so sure now and they cant be sure if its actually better to scare people into believing the ice caps are melting and will flood everything or whether we have another ice age coming.
Im not convinced of the actually effect on climate of mans actions. I believe if there is any noticeable pattern of change that it is down to natural cycles. What ended the ice age? It wasnt the motor car, thats for sure.

Red Kev

Porsche 918. 887 bhp, 70-79 g/CO2 = €170 tax per annum

Tesla is still €120 per annum for 424 bhp so I reckon the Porsche wins.

Porsche also does a sub 7 minutes on the Nurburgring which is almost beyond comprehension. To put it into perspective Stefan Bellof dis it in 6:11 in a Porsche 956. Crazy figures.

traco

Red Kev wrote: »

Porsche 918. 887 bhp, 70-79 g/CO2 = €170 tax per annum

Tesla is still €120 per annum for 424 bhp so I reckon the Porsche wins.

Porsche also does a sub 7 minutes on the Nurburgring which is almost beyond comprehension. To put it into perspective Stefan Bellof dis it in 6:11 in a Porsche 956. Crazy figures.

Excellent find. Absolutely savage engineering

I saw lots of Teslas on the road in California during the summer, very impressive to be fair to them. Although I do wonder about the company and the way its share price is rocketing, seems too good to be true.

As for emisisions on electric there are two points that need to be considered. Those at the exhaust which an all electric has zero to be fair and if you choose to bring in the power stations then its only fair that the CO2 for producing the fuel should be considered to balance the equation ie the well to pump CO2 per litre for ICE vehicles.

For the record I admire the electric cars and find them fascinating but I'd be from the "There's no subsitute for cubic inches" school of thought!

So given the cars listed and the term "bang" for your tax, which one would be the most practical and enjoyable to own and live with every day.

For that reason I'm still going with the Panemera cos I'd definitely get the most bang out of it for €170