Alfa Romeo Forum banner
281 - 300 of 340 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
£130 for a manual, and pretty much any diesel car is in a cheap tax band now.
Agree 30 quid tax for a petrol auto with 170bhp is pretty good- I think previously it was 121 co2, so they have now sneaked it under the "magic" 120.
Strange how even the mito 140 tct sits in the next tax band up.
Does all indeed show that kia has some catching up to do.
The gt is still a nice car, just not particularly clean.
Are you sure the MY14 petrol is so expensive? My 135TCT Mito was £90 in 2011! Then did some tweaks to the engine for Euro6 rating in 2014 on the G, that's the reason why it's so cheap now. I have free road tax for the first year so I'm sure if will be up to £40 next year!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Are you sure the MY14 petrol is so expensive? My 135TCT Mito was £90 in 2011! Then did some tweaks to the engine for Euro6 rating in 2014 on the G, that's the reason why it's so cheap now. I have free road tax for the first year so I'm sure if will be up to £40 next year!
The website isn't brilliant on info- on one page the official site even says the twinair is 140bhp!!
It even lists the old 70 and 78bhp engines which aren't even available now.
In the qv section I can't see anywhere what the co2 of the 170 is, which seems a pretty bad oversight as it's a good selling point being quite low for such power.
Pretty sure the newest 140tct is 124 co2 giving annual tax at £110. So can safely assume the 170qv (tct only) is slightly higher
Think registration (1st year tax) is free sub 120co2 cars.
Must have done lots of tweaking to the G recently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
The website isn't brilliant on info- on one page the official site even says the twinair is 140bhp!!
Pretty sure the newest 140tct is 124 co2 giving annual tax at £110. So can safely assume the 170qv (tct only) is slightly higher
Think registration (1st year tax) is free sub 120co2 cars.
Must have done lots of tweaking to the G recently.
I just looked it up on the gov website. I'm shocked! The euro6 G manual is £130. Why is it so much cheaper on a TCT? The TCT model is also .1 second faster from 0-62, not that it should make a difference! Are they telling us that someone driving a TCT with drive more environmentally friendly than a manual user? Is this the reason Alfa are pushing TCTs on their higher spec models?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
The website isn't brilliant on info- on one page the official site even says the twinair is 140bhp!!
It even lists the old 70 and 78bhp engines which aren't even available now.
In the qv section I can't see anywhere what the co2 of the 170 is, which seems a pretty bad oversight as it's a good selling point being quite low for such power.
Pretty sure the newest 140tct is 124 co2 giving annual tax at £110. So can safely assume the 170qv (tct only) is slightly higher
Think registration (1st year tax) is free sub 120co2 cars.
Must have done lots of tweaking to the G recently.
140 TCT and 170 TCT Mitos are the same. £110!

Select a search : Directgov - Car fuel data, CO2 and vehicle tax tools
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
£130 for a manual, and pretty much any diesel car is in a cheap tax band now.
Agree 30 quid tax for a petrol auto with 170bhp is pretty good- I think previously it was 121 co2, so they have now sneaked it under the "magic" 120.
Strange how even the mito 140 tct sits in the next tax band up.
Does all indeed show that kia has some catching up to do.
The gt is still a nice car, just not particularly clean.

As I said, £130 for the manual.
Maybe tct's are just much more efficient these days.
Never driven one, but from what friends have said, particularly of the vw dsg, you would never go back to a manual.
Read somewhere recently that Vauxhall, the maker of fine manual boxes (not), are developing a 10 speed auto!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,126 Posts
Isn't it rather tragic when supposed petrol heads are looking at MPG, Co2 etc :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
140 and 170 mito exactly the same, go figure!
Very odd that the bigger, heavier G should have lower tax bands.
Maybe they finally gave up updating the mito and might not be long before it dies altogether.
I does sound like it:( But it just goes to show what they can do with these engines if forced to!
 
G

·
Isn't it rather tragic when supposed petrol heads are looking at MPG, Co2 etc :(
A little sad, but not tragic. We all have to start somewhere, and this often means being a petrol head but on a budget when you start out. Plus priorities change for some through life, but that doesn't mean that you're no longer a petrol head if conscious about MPG and Co2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
590 Posts
Not sure if anyone else have mentioned the Volvo V40 RDesign purely in terms of looks - I think they have a sporting, quality feel and do look a little different to the current crop of hatchbacks - anyone else agree?
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Not sure if anyone else have mentioned the Volvo V40 RDesign purely in terms of looks - I think they have a sporting, quality feel and do look a little different to the current crop of hatchbacks look to them - anyone else agree?

http://www.netswerve.com/V40.jpg
Lovely looking car that, and it's not going to fall to bits.
Bit of a leftfield choice, a little like the G.
Mazda3, very nice in the flesh, but Mazda fancies itself as going more premium, and prices heading that way, too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,088 Posts
Yep. CO2 is only significant because you get taxed based on it, although to be fair, a difference of £20 a year is smaller than the error in any prediction you'd make based on published consumption figures.

The UK's car taxation rules are pretty mild compared to other countries -- especially at the "performance" end of the market: here in Ireland, anything over 226g/km is taxed at an eye-watering €2350 per year (compare to UK rate of £485~500), and never, ever, bring up the topic of car purchase taxes if you're speaking to a Danish friend.

Re the V40, it was on my list when I was replacing the 147. It had some surprising flaws, though: I found the ride quality to be very poor on even the regular model (both "for a Volvo" and "compared to a Giulietta") without any real benefit to handling, and the driver's position offered very little headroom (I'm 6'3" and my hair brushed the headlining). Against that, a very handsome car, very nice interior and superb seats. If you like "firm" suspension and aren't much above 6ft tall, it's well worth a look.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
It's all smoke and mirrors.
Diesel cars are now cheaper to tax in uk than petrol equivalents- fair enough they pay in dpf/egr problems etc, but no-one could ever convince me a diesel engine is better for the environment than a petrol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
Not sure if anyone else have mentioned the Volvo V40 RDesign purely in terms of looks - I think they have a sporting, quality feel and do look a little different to the current crop of hatchbacks - anyone else agree?
I totally agree. This is one of the reason brought a Mito in 2011, my next choice was a V30. I like cars that look a little difference so when I upgraded I needed a larger car so brought a G. If I was leaving the fold I would look at a Volvo!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Hyundai veloster could have been interesting if they hadn't made such a mess of the front end and interior.
Dirty (see kia) engines, too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,273 Posts
I nearly bought the Golf until I drove it. It's supremely competent, and if putting your foot down and just going forward is your bag, it fulfils that requirement. However, having had 4wd 300bhp+ cars before it, it just felt a bit stale. Too grown up for me. In the dynamics stakes, the STI 330S and Evo FQ330 I had before it were far, far more enjoyable to drive even at 5/10ths. I suspect you need to be an absolute hooligan to bring the Golf alive. But go for it if you want to point, squirt and go. It does that very well.
 
281 - 300 of 340 Posts
Top