Mazda Rotary Club

Just thought I\'d share my recent experiences in re-registering my imported FD with the correct engine capacity of 1308cc\'s. I started off returning my V5 to the DVLA with the ammended engine capacity. Now since this puts the car in the lower taxation class, they got all excited and wanted to see some proof. There was a list of four or so acceptable forms of evidence to support the change, one of which was a letter from the manufacturer confirming engine size. I recieved a letter from Mazda stating that whilst the capacity of all 13B rotary engines IS 1308cc, due to a long standing agreement with the Department of transport, all RX7\'s officially imported into this country had to be registered at 2x the swept volume (i.e. a government run scam to squeeze more cash out of drivers on the grounds of a technicality). They also informed me that even though my car was privately imported, I would still be required to register my vehicle accoringly. "Bollocks" I thought. Anyway, having already gone to extrordinay lengths required to find the engine number, I decided to explore some of the other options available to me. One other acceptable form of evidence is a letter from a garage on headed paper. Now it just so happens that W.G.T Auto Developments will provide you with such a letter for the paltry sum of £5...money well spent in my opinion. I also chucked in a copy of the Japanese auction certificate for good measure, which showed the capacity as 0.65cc x 2, and robert\'s your father\'s brother, a week later I had a shiny new V5 displaying the correct engine capacity.  So anyone out there still running around registered as 2.6, save yourself £60 a year or whatever it is and get your car re-registered. Don\'t let the bastards scam you!

I was looking to do this, but not sure if they will except it?, so all they need is a letter stating proof of the engine capacity from any garage?

i take it WGT auto have issued this letter before to other people so they know what they are saying in the letter ?

Shaq

Has anyone got a insurance company to acknoledge the capacity as 1.3 though ??

My v5 is different to my insurance cos no insurance company on the planet will recognise it as a 1.3

Dave

Sureterm put mine down as 1.3, but it helped that my broker knew exactly what I was talking about so I didnt have to try and explain.

Lee

yeah, right pain... mine is registered as a 1300 on the V5 but the insurance company still insists it\'s 2600... how they figure that anyway?? Cheeky buggers.

Yeah, tried a few rotary specialists, but W.G.T. were the only ones prepaired to provide such a letter.  I e-mailed them the details of my car: Registration, Vin #, Engine # etc. and they sent me back a letter stating
 
"To whom it may concern: this is to confirm that the actual capacity of the engine of the above vehicle is 1308cc".

Talk to Pip Gardner at W.G.T, he\'ll be more than happy to sort you out. If you get the letter before you send back your V5 to the DVLA then they should make the changes without any fuss. I live in Swansea so I actually went into the DVLA head office and handed the documents to the woman who was handling my case. I had my new V5 within a week.

Will have to give Sureterm a try, they\'re the kit car specialists aren\'t they?

They specialse in a few performance things now I think.  I believe you need to be over 30 now though.

It wont make it cheaper or anything, I just had it for consistency through my documentation.

Lee

..sounds great...can anyone provide me with the contact no. or email address for Pip Gardner at WGT Autos please...

Cheers

http://www.wgtautodevelopments.co.uk/ (http://www.wgtautodevelopments.co.uk/)
Address - Unit 5&6, Beaver Center,  Northwich, Cheshire, CW9 8AU.

Tel - (01606) 48866

Fax - (01606) 330004

aha i\'m off to see Pip next week that give\'s me sumin else to torment him for :D lol
Si

I have had insurance cancelled in the past due to the V5 saying 1300 cc when asked for by the broker.  
Sureterm sorted me out in the end though...

im with sureterm, but they still put it down as 2616cc . :(

...reminds me, must ring them about my new wheels.

ARSE having done said letter & reg thing from Pip & sending to DVLA while my car is out of action anyway, anyway just got letter back saying as follows:

QuoteDear Mr Watkins,

Thank you for your recent application for notification of a change in the engine capacity.

DVLA has recently sought advice on vehicles powered by rotary engines & how the engine capacity should be recorded for licensing purposes. Based on this advice, the correct capacity for your vehicle is 2616cc. This is calculated from the sum of the swept volumes of each of the rotors in the engine, multiplied by 2. In this case 2 rotors each of 654cc=654x2x2=2616cc. This is defined in the automotive Exhaust Emissions Directive. The supporting evidence you refer to actually quotes the "displacement " as 654ccx2. It is our view that displacement is intended to mean the same as swept volume. It is not the same as cylinder capacity.

I trust this has clarified the position. Your V5 will follow showing the correct engine size as 2616cc.

Yours sincerely...........

(http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/dvv/po.gif)BOOGER (http://www.computerpannen.com/cwm/contrib/edoom/puppy_dog_eyes.gif) Sounds like they have quite a lot of "facts" but is there anything i can go back with saying aha but i only need a letter on headed paper saying blah blah or sumin or am i effectively shafted on the 1.3 front? Any budding lawyers out there? Do you have it anywhere saying what was acceptable for changes as you say in opening statement?
Cheers folks
Si

do they have a leg to stand on with the dispacement thing, other than yes if they feel like it they make the rules, & WTF is "automotive Exhaust Emissions Directive"??
Si (AKA straw clutcher...(http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/hayseed.gif))

I have no idea on this one, sorry.  But bang goes me registering mine as a 1.3.  :mad:

although looking at it it still gives no justification as to why they multiply the swept volume by 2 just that it does it as defined in automotive Exhaust Emissions Directive so i\'d really like to know what this says in the hope i can pea on their money grabbing bonfire
Fingers crossed i\'ll find sumin but info wood be good....
Cheers
Si

another thing, does cc refer to cylinder capacity they refer to i always thought it ment cubic capacity but that could be my error?
Si

I\'m gonna look into it.  I imagine that the automotive Exhaust Emissions Directive was dreamed up a few years back now, to accommidate the influx of imported \'rotarys\'.  We all know that FDs run rich, and so dont have the lowest of emisions, so it\'s my opinion that the body responsible for setting the road fund licence based on emissions (for new cars) invented the automotive Exhaust Emissions Directive as a way of getting some back payment from cheeky gits like us with our 1.3s!  

I guess what I\'m trying to say, is it\'s all about screwing us for all the money they can!!! :reallymad

CC does stand for cubic capacity.

But then it can also mean \'Carrying capacity\' (CC) as a term often talked about in relation to livestock in the communal areas. :p

cc = cubic centimetre :rollin

and its not just imports all rotaries have been double the capicity since the RO80

what about in the USA?  Dont they use the term CC too?  But measure their engines in Cubic Inches???:confused:

lol yeah i just found that it does mention cylinder capacity on the govt sites so remind me what is the theoretical arguement where by the capacity of the rotor is twice, or should it be 3 times, that of what it\'s actually listed as & how that compares to a piston or what have you. Just trying to remember all the BS so i can throw it back at em on the phone tomorrow when they tell me what this fabulous directive says, looks like it came about in 1996 from a quick gander but not sure.................
Si (practicing riding the bull sh!t )

CI = Cubic inches
CC = Cubic Centimetres

its one of the few metric things they the yanks have picked up on.

how about this, are cars classed as PLG\'s? presume so & given that is a DVAL document it can only be the interpretation of my evidense they are trying to question but surely as it\'s acceptable evidence, ie a garage headed letter, that they have to accept at face valuye that it is as stated 1308cc for my car?
Damn it where\'s me brief?
Si (ing dummy out of time?)

oops forgot pikky, from a application for V70 (what is that?)

Maybe it\'ll only now work if it\'s the first time the car\'s been registered in the UK?  Afterall what your trying to tell the DVLA, if you\'re car\'s already reg\'d, is the that the same engine (as per same engine number) has all of a sudden shrunk to half it\'s size?!!  If they have no record of a capicity and number, might the headed garage letter work then? :confused:

aha but they have it registered wrong the first time & it says on the letter from garage that the actual capacity of the engine is 1308cc & that is all, from the above document i need to have to reduce it. I\'m an awkward feker & i wont be put off lol
Si

How long have you had a V5 stating the capacity as 2616?  Cause if its more than a few weeks I bet they would argue that if you noticed it was incorrect why didn\'t you get it sorted?  Also if you\'d had it taxed as a 2616 the you cant argue that you\'d not noticed their mistake?

By the way I\'m on your side as I want the cheaper tax too!

Whats a 10a poster, and how do I change it???

Sorry forget that last one, found it now (muppet) :)

Hi guys, can I just sound dumb for a second and clarify this for myself?! In the brochure it says "Two 654 cc rotor units" Does it mean that the 3 sections/ports of the rotor hold 218cc (218cc x 3ports (654cc) x2 rotors (1308cc total) & 2616cc in B******T terms!!?

I used to hear when I first got interested in the rotary that the only reason for doubling up the capacity was that it was an equivalent output? How about the RX8 have all these been registered as 1308cc or 2616cc?

I was gonna ask that, are there any \'8 owners around that could answer? Or should we go into their section and ask? Would be interesting to know!

lol at weasles new posting title
Was first registered late January so not a very long time ago & was taxed etc before i took delivery but i dont see how that effects anything really, i presume 8\'s are all registered as 2.6 also but anyway i\'ll see wot i can or more likely can\'t get out of them today................
Si

I\'m pretty sure you\'ll luck out today.  When \'browsing\' insurance companys I\'d noticed the Rx-8 was listed at 2616, so you cant even do the \'but it the same engine as the new one\' bit.

Right off to shi**y work. I is late. :wave

Simon

Mine is regsietred as a 1.3 and has been since I aquired it

I don\'t see how they can refuse to change it for you if there are hundreds of other owners out there with it down as a 1.3

Surely thats a breach of some Brussels directive on equalty or something :)

Don\'t kick up too much of a fuss though or we might all have it changed to 2616 :)

Mine was registered as a 1.3 but if DVLA sent me a letter stating that it hsould be 2.6 I wouldn\'t get all shirty about it \'coz realistically it\'s as powerful and thirsty as any 2.6 boinger - worse probably.

Not that I\'m going to volunteer any info on it! :D

As for the extra duty payable - it\'s only a tank or so of Optimax.

As a matter of principle though road tax is bad - it should be added to fuel cost and penalise people who drive alot!

Iain

As a matter of principle though road tax is bad - it should be added to fuel cost and penalise people who drive alot!

What do you mean added?!??? Haven\'t tha b@%$£*ds added enough to the cost of petrol already? When u think in terms of how much petrol costs here compared to the US (I have a couple of mates in the states who are complaining that gas is nearly $3 a gallon - thats just over £1.60 and they say that is too expensive???:eek: ) And before anyone mentions it, yes the RON rating is lower, but that is down to the fact that they measure it differently, petrol quality is similar to ours.

Although I agree, scrap the road tax as it is just another stealth tax anyway, all it seems to be used for is to pay for schemes which make driving less enjoyable!

thought I\'d get on my soapbox as OJ hasn\'t mentioned anything on this thread yet!

cheers

ah balls just tryped out a summary of todays goings on but sodding PC crashed when i tried posting it :reallymad will redo that later i\'m currently working hard ;) lol
Quicky thou 654cc does this actually refer to the volume on one side of the rotoro or the volume of all 3 on 1 rotor if that makes sense? ie wanting to know if it\'s only one side as they may try the well it\'s used twice or sumin (erm :confused: )would this be feasible if leading & trailing firing into the 654cc hole on every rotation?
Just trying to be knowledgeable for when they come back with more BS............
Si

its a 654cc change in volume per "chamber"

OK going out on a limb here....

I believe that the 654cc refers to one side of the rotor, and as the \'crankshaft\' makes one full revolution for every combustion of that one rotor side then 654cc should be the correct capacity for 1 rotor.  And as there are 2 rotors we get 1308cc.

That compares to a piston engine of the same cc, where one up and down movement also turn the crankshaft one complete revolution, so a 2 pistion engine would be a 1.3 too.  Having said that because the piston needs to come back up again to expel the exhaust gases (4 stroke) you only get half the power?  So you need 2 more pistons  to get the same amount of power as a 2 rotor engine???  1.3 rotor=2.6 piston=why it\'s classed as double?????!!!!

Are any of these ramblings making sense????? :confused:

Cool that should make for continued confusion tomorrow but a rough (very rough as i\'ve been to sleep (http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/3dlil/sleep.gif) er i mean work since then) so can\'t remember exactly what was said but gist as follows:

 (dodgy welsh accent mode on ) "ah yes your vehicle is indeed a 2616cc"

Based on what, since i\'ve supplied you with the evidence you needed for a cc reduction in the form of written confirmation from a garage as per your paperwork on the V70 (the bit i\'d posted up previously)

Have you tried getting this from Mazda?

No i didn\'t know i had to since i\'ve supplied evidence as stated on your form.

Well if you can get it from Mazda....

Yes but surely i dont need to as you have sufficient evidence from a garage.

Ah but most the RX7\'s & the new RX8\'s are 2616cc

Ah yes but it doesn\'t say i have to get from Mazda on your form & i have infact gone to a rotary specialist who has confirmed this capacity to be 1308cc as per the supplied letter...

Oh that\'s (letter from garage) is only for a new engine...

(didnt say it but that\'s bollox i dont read it like that on the previous image only that written confirmation of change, as in the change to cc compared with what\'s on V5 thingy, although could i always claim i\'d had a rebuild & it is a 1308 after the rebuild, even thou it was 1308 before it anyhow.....lol)

But it states it on your letter as well that each rotor is 654cc which x2 only makes 1308cc by my reckoning?

Ah yes but there\'s 2 rotors so you have to times by 2

Oh yes..............................I DID THAT as per where your document states 2 rotors of 654cc each but then goes on to times by 2 twice so WHY?

erm

Only says this is defined in Automotive exhaust emissions directive?

Ah..............yes i\'m not familiar with that directive.

Well can you get me a copy please as i can see no reason why your timesing it by 2 again so i\'d like a copy to see what this is based upon although as i see it i\'ve supplied all evidience i need in relation to getting registered as 1308cc.

takes my no to ring back later.....pmsl

Later rings back saying amongst other things it looks like a mistake that a standard letter was sent out first & then later a standard one in relation to the rotary as i hadn\'t specified it was a rotary on mine.

Er dunno mate i never got a "first" letter i only got this latest one going on about the rotary engine & multiplying it by 2 twice unecessarily in relation to me having sent my V5 back with correct cc on & required evidence having noticed it was incorrect.

Oh so you just filled in the details on the back of the v5

yes

blah blah over the various this that & the other

me back on the Automotive Exhaust Emissions Directive thing




Bottom line he\'s going to try & find out & get me a copy of the ellusive Directive & we\'ll see what happens then.............(http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif)

Si ( AKA pain in the ass , but hey it\'s giving me amusement knowing they\'re having to earn their money for a change lol)
PS nowt ment by the sheep thing just a way to distinguish my ramblings from the DVLA chappy.....

I\'m looking forward to reading a copy of the Automotive Exhaust Emissions Directive myself! :D

Don\'t let up on them Si (I know you wont).

who me let it lie NEVER i have a choice quote ready for tomorrow lol
Si

ahh int that sweet i\'ve got a nice new V5C document with an extra 16cc waiting for my return tonight lol
Si (apparently i have to check all details are correct (http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/rofl.gif) lol)

Hi all

So for me (who has yet to import one) can I register it when it lands as a 1306cc and they will buy it? A friend of mine owns an import company so he will be doing it for me and I have asked him to register as 1306, will this work better than trying to change it after the event??

cheers

1308cc\'s might be more appropriate ;)

654x2 = 1306....never was good at maths DOHH!!!!

:rollin hehehe

well following up noone called me today so i\'ll be doing some more torment tomorrow
In terms of registering it you may get lucky or befriend sum1 at DVLA but i was told by motormall when mine was coming in that about 90% (as i recall) get rego\'d as 2.6 now (http://mindscraps.com/s/contrib/sarge/Disappointed_anim.gif)
Si

Not that its very constructive, but mine is registered as a 1.3......

Ian

i hear gloating isn\'t very attractive (http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/otn/tongue/newtonguesmile.gif)lmao
Si (AKA jealous )

My other car\'s registered as a 1.3 too.  :D

my other car IS a 1.3 :rolleyes: :D

ahh was just getting in a suitable mood for being awkward & then she says she\'s trying to find out more & still chasing it, zee directive, & will get back to me Tuesday if not today................
Si

mine is also registered as a 1995 1300cc Mazda RX7 Coupe.  Not even a mention uf the twin tubbies

lol got a call today saying they were still looking into it & it was with the planning department or sumin like that, i did ask if they were planning to try to dig the ellsuive directive out or planning to make a new one to fit the bill but didn\'t get much of a response to that (http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/realhappy/op485.gif) lmao
Si (not holding breath but i\'m enjoying this anyway now......lol)

redirected to this thread (cheers scooby_si)

Have read all that\'s gone before and think I can add to the debate.  I have a 96 import.  Registered with a cylinder capacity of 2616cc (cubic centimetres).  I got the V5 a couple of weeks ago so figure I have a right to challenge it and plan to do so.
The instruction with the document is to review and advise of any incorrect points in accordance with the guidance notes.
The guidance notes would seem to use the term "change" to cover alterations to the vehicle and corrections to the data on the form.  

The term cylinder capacity needs to be defined.  Logically this term is a proxy for displacement in the case of those of us without cylinders.

The arguement from those of us who want to save money:
The volume displacement of one side of a single rotor is 654cc.  The engine has two rotors therefore it is 1308cc

I expect if I can get someone with half a brain that knows anything about rotaries at DVLA, they will argue that whilst one side of the rotor is full of petrol, displacing 654cc, one of the remaining 2 sides is burning petrol of the same displacement.  This would allow for their arguement of considering each rotor as 1308cc.

What I don\'t know (engaging mechanically stupid mode) is how a normal piston engine works and whether this is a fair and consistent application fo the rule.  Help from anyone would be welcome on this point - preferably with enough clear info for me to argue the point.

Gonna try and call them tomorrow, hopefully some helpful sole will post some piston engine info for me by reply before then.

Scooby, can you get the full name of the directive they are referring to?  I\'ll try as well, but if you can get it, post it.  Then we can try and turn up a copy.

Hopefully I\'ll be able to do something quickly as my road tax is due at the end of May!!

Off the Dtf website

The Motor Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2000

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/downloadable/dft_roads_506814.pdf

\'"rotary piston engine" means an engine in which the torque is provided by means of one or more rotary pistons and not by any reciprocating piston; and any rotary piston engine shall be deemed to be a four stroke engine\'

This mean anything to anyone?

i\'lll letcha no how it goes will call them again tomorrow if they haven\'t come back with anything further....
For the directive they mention all i have, & them it would seem by their lack of any knowledge/info on it so far (http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/lynx/grnwink.gif), is what they called it on the letter as mantioned previoulsy "Automotive Exhaust Emissions Directive"
Dont kick up too much fuss till i\'ve had my fun i wouldn\'t want them thinking i was ganging up on them..................lmao (http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/wink/1bluewinky.gif)
Si

lol had another call today saying we\'ve found a man who knows all about the "Automotive exhaust emissions directive" & who you can call & he\'ll give you all the info you need. After a bit of yes but i\'ve already given you evidence of my cc already stuff i took the number.......
PMSL when i called him, not from DVLA & seems he is a chap who delas with manufacturers about approvals & such like but when i started waffling about my rotary engine, CC & the said directive he stopped me & said yer talking in a foreigh language mate means nothing to me! PMSL so checked again he knew nowt about this directive & didnt have a clue what i was on about :D lmao
So call back to DVLA & said nope he didnt no jack about yer "Directive" followed by an OH :( lol
Erm well ahhh err let me just see if i can have a word with the planning department.................no right i\'ll need to leave this with the planning department & see what they can find out :rollin
I again state i\'m not really fussed about this as i have already given them evidence & they cant find wot they\'re on about i just want me 1.3........
Anyway calls back not long after & it now seems they\'re going to go to, check with or such like Mazda....
I again start going on about how i\'ve already supplied them with evidence as stated on their paperwork & that while getting from Mazda was one form of proof so was letter from garage which i\'d already done & so surely that was all i needed to do, think i stuck legally in there sumwhere as well which, inbetween a slight sniggers & mentions of tax bands she goes back to her fav line of it\'s just the guide i\'m following & there was something looked at with rotaries. LMAO
Can you tell i was getting defensive when mazda was mentioned as i\'m sure they will come back with the 2.6 thing.
Anyone know the full SP with the "agreement" between mazda & DVLA on this, ie why did they & such like surely mazda gets nothing out of it???
Anyway i\'m going to stick to my guns about already having given necessary evidence for cc alteration etc & we\'ll see how that goes if mazda contradict that...........
Again all as best i can remember it from a wording point of view....
Si

I cant hel wondering what they do about 2 stroke bikes and scooters.

Is a 50 then a 100 cc according to the DVLA???

wots crack with them then are they not boingers? Presume this is just a rotary witch hunt
Si

Anyway back on track got a further call today saying that he\'d had a word with fella at Mazda & that it was per an agreement between...blah blah, did i want his no.
Anyway after doing my but yer i have already supplied evidence you need wotever mazda say....He then says that that is indeed only when engine has been changed which when i said what if it has been changed before i took it (http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/otn/wink/smily012.gif) he said i would need confirmation including all engine numbers etc from a garage etc. Is that a possibility or will they be able to check my engine no with mazda to confirm it\'s still a standard(ish) twin rotary?

Anyway called the mzda fella in the end who seemed to be chap who sorts out vehicle approvals & such like & did seem to know his stuff & did confirm the X2 bit was following on from the agreement with erm booger cant remember their name now not DVLA but vehicle agency or sumin (read i\'ll post proper name when i get it from my scrawlings at work....) anyway the agreement between mazda & those folks in the 50\'s & that it was something they\'d always done there after, & thus would need to have sumin sturdy to come up with a way to go against the way it\'s always been done as such. So that\'s not so promising in theory although he did say that there wasn\'t anything in writing in relation to this agreement, at least that he or anyone else could find had encountered. The only thing he could find that specifically related to the roatry was specified in some euroean thingy about exhaust emissiong etc, sounds like the thing the DVLA were previously trying to refer to, which he is going to email me (all going well..) & basically specifies in relation to emissions (& this alone potentially which sounds more promising) pistons engines will be as per the swept volume etc & rotaries will be twice that. Not word for word or 100% on that so will post more when i get it but surely if it is just in relations that shouldn\'t have any bearing on cars which aren\'t registered based on emissions but cc only?
This was the arguement when i inquired about why Mazda would want to do this & he said it was the way it had always been since the NSU RX3, 4 etc since the "agreement" & as i say the fact that it\'s always been like this is almost an acknowledgement of this being so...:( But in relation to looking at it more recently (Mazda) it wasn\'t anything worth doing etc as the new vehicles (or at least newest since the last UK 7\'s in 1994 were they not 1995 UK uns too?) ie the RX8 would be registered under emissions & not CC which since they clearly were bad on emissions etc they were always going to be in top bands etc........& so from theoretical point of view i\'d be stuffed trying to justify a 1.3 putting out 200bhp in 1.3cc terms anyway.
Damn it i dont want that logic the fact that it kicks a pistons ass like for like size aint my fault is it (although i wont mention the emissions of a 7 as i\'m being a stubborn narrow minded sod now so dont wana be put off by such nasty logic! (http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/scorchio/saevilw.gif) lol)
I did comment on the it helps if it\'s got a couple of turbos when he was saying others wouldn\'t view it at all favourably as they know you cant get 200+break out of a 1.3 but we didnt dwell on that (http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/wink/1bluewinky.gif) lol
Basically i\'ll see what it says in this european thing but if that\'s all they have in writting i\'m guna stick with being a proper annoying SOB! but just to clarify since it does relate to emissions specifically now i know cars registered after 2001 or whenever it was are registered in terms of emissions rather than cc but does this just relate to "new" cars or would it include any cars imported after that date also? Only that would also pea on my bonfire since mine was only registered this year So can anyone comfirm that? Otherwise i\'m going to continue being a pain...........
Si

Damn that\'s some rock solid abuse of the english language above (http://www.computerpannen.com/cwm/cwm/cwm/uhoh.gif) even by my standards......lol
Si (good luck reading )

I think you\'re safe from the emissions lobby. if the car is pre 1997.
It should be based on the date of 1 January immediately before the date of manufacture of the engine.  - wonder what they do about rebuilds though...

horsepower is irrelevant.  If they left a hole in the system and think they meant to tax that it\'s their problem.  It will take them years to pass an amendment on that through the European courts.

Been onto the DFT website and got some stuff from there.  It\'s all tied in to other documents though.  You download one which refers you to another as a get out clause and I can\'t find the other to download to see if the rotary is one of their exceptions in \'the emissions publication\'.

Have managed to convince DVLa to let my local office handle everything and have go the garage doing my MOT to say they\'ll give me a letter confirming 1.3 at the same time as the MOT.  Might ask them to do me 2 letters.... 1 also stating that technically the vehicle is an Efini RX7 to get round their "you have to get this from Mazda angle"

You might also want to quote DVLA leaflet V149 (Rates of Vehicle Excise Duty) as published on their website http://www.dvla.gov.uk/forms/pdf/v149online.pdf only stating over or under 1549cc.  Utilising a commonly accepted reference to cubic centimetres and not swept volume and not making any statement to clarify the intent of the reference or any limitations.  Basically they seem to be pushing their luck.

further info is apparnetly available from form V355/1 available from local offices but not available for download on their site.

Ask them for a copy of "Vehicle Excise and Registration Act" as well.  I know it was passed as law in 1994 but I\'m sure there will be amendments to it since then, however that is what they quote in form V149

Will post next week after I see if my local office give any grief, but am still gathering ammo in case so please post if you get anything else that\'s relevant.  Such as confirmation that they don\'t actually have the fabled gentlemans agreement with Mazda on paper.

Gregor

cheers bud more ammo for my torment of tomorrow!!!!! lol
Do you have anything to confirm the emissions/registration thing can\'t be applied to my car since it was only registered in UK in 2004 although was first manufactured in 1996 (http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/party/party.gif)?
Si (trying to cover all bases incase they try worming out another way....)

Check out page 25 and try to work your way around.:rollin

Most is there but it refers to "the annex to \'the emissions publication\'" for exceptions not listed.
Can\'t find that though.

Enjoy... :(

Gregor

Right well here\'s the relevant, & only, document the mazda man could find which related to rotariers & any doubling on engine etc:

QuoteTITLE: Motor Vehicle Emissions ISSUE: 1 70/220/EEC

Sept/1997 PAGE: 5



ANNEX I
SCOPE, DEFINITIONS, APPLICATION FOR EEC TYPE-APPROVAL, GRANTING OF EEC
TYPE-APPROVAL, REQUIREMENTS AND TESTS, MODIFICATIONS OF THE TYPE,
CONFORMITY OF PRODUCTION, TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
1. SCOPE
This Directive applies to
? the tailpipe emissions, evaporative emissions, emissions of crankcase
gases and the durability of anti-pollution devices for all motor vehicles
equipped with positive-ignition engines
and
? the tailpipe emissions and durability of anti-pollution devices from
vehicles of categories M1 and N1
(1), equipped with compression-ignition engines
covered by Article 1 of Directive 70/220/EEC in the version of Directive
83/351/EEC (2), with the exception of those vehicles of category N1 for
which type-approval has been granted pursuant to Directive 88/77/EEC (3).
At the request of the manufacturers, type-approval pursuant to this
Directive may be extended from M1 or N1 vehicles equipped with compression
ignition engines which have already been type-approved, to M2 and N2
vehicles having a reference mass not exceeding 2840 kg and meeting the
conditions of Section 6 of this Annex (extension of EEC typeapproval). 2.
DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this Directive:
2.1. \'Vehicle type\' with regard to the tailpipe emissions from the engine,
means a category of power-driven vehicles which do not differ in such
essential respects as: 2.1.1. the equivalent inertia determined in
relation to the reference mass as prescribed in Section 5.1 of Annex III;
and
2.1.2. the engine and vehicle characteristics as defined in Annex II. 2.2.
\'Reference mass\' means the mass of the vehicle in running order less the
uniform mass of the driver of 75 kg and increased by a uniform mass of 100
kg.
2.2.1. \'Mass of the vehicle in running order\' means the mass defined in
Section 2.6 of Annex I to Directive 70/156/EEC.
2.3. \'Maximum mass\' means the mass defined in Section 2.7 of Annex I to
Directive 70/156/EEC.
(1) As defined in Annex II A to Directive 70/156/EEC.
(2) OJ No L 197, 20.7.1983, p. 1.
(3) OJ No L 36, 9.2.1988, p. 33.


EEC

Sept/1997 PAGE: 6

2.4. \'Gaseous pollutants\' means the exhaust gas emissions of carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons (assuming a ratio of C1H1,85), and oxides of
nitrogen, expressed in nitrogen dioxide (NO2) equivalent.
2.5. \'Particulate pollutants\' means components of the exhaust gas which
are removed from the diluted exhaust gas at a maximum temperature of 325 K
(52°C) by means of the filters described in Annex III.
2.6. \'Tailpipe emissions\' means:
? for positive-ignition engines, the emission of gaseous pollutants, ? for
compression-ignition engines, the emission of gaseous and particulate
pollutants. 2.7. \'Evaporative emissions\' means the hydrocarbon vapours
lost from the fuel system of a motor vehicle other than those from
tailpipe emissions.
2.7.1. \'Tank breathing losses\' are hydrocarbon emissions caused by
temperature changes in the fuel tank (assuming a ratio of C1H2,33).
2.7.2. \'Hot soak losses\' are hydrocarbon emissions arising from the fuel
system of a stationary vehicle after a period of driving (assuming a ratio
of C1H2,20).
2.8. \'Engine crankcase\' means the spaces in, or external to, an engine
which are connected to the oil sump by internal or external ducts through
which gases and vapours can escape. 2.9. \'Cold start device\' means a
device which temporarily enriches the air/fuel mixture of the engine thus
assisting the engine to start.
2.10. \'Starting aid\' means a device which assists the engine to start
without enrichment of the air/fuel mixture of the engine, e.g. glow plugs,
modifications to the injection timing. 2.11. \'Engine capacity\' means:
2.11.1. for reciprocating piston engines, the nominal engine swept volume,
2.11.2. for rotary piston (Wankel) engines, double the nominal engine
swept volume, 2.12. \'Anti-pollution device\' means those components of a
vehicle that control and/or limit tailpipe and evaporative emissions,

So my questions are now, or any opinions good: How well worded does that sound in relation to using this in relation to the actuall size/CC for a rotary as in it initially says this is purely in relation to emissions so surely anything within cannot be used for actual CC related matters or does the last bit i\'ve made bold mean this can be used in whatever context they like?
Thoughts please as i\'m thinking "legally" ;) it just relates to emissions so unless they have sumin better they can sod off? Although it does specifically say engine capacity?
Any thoughts folks b4 i try my luck once again.....
Ta
Si

Quote2.11. \'Engine capacity\' means: 2.11.1. for reciprocating piston engines, the nominal engine swept volume, 2.11.2. for rotary piston (Wankel) engines, double the nominal engine swept volume,

I think it basically means that if DVLA get hold of this document, everyone is knackered.  :eek:

It wouldn\'t take much to search their database for RX7\'s and up the road tax for everyone.:flamed  I wouldn\'t bring their attention to it...

Legally?  I\'m no expert but if it appeared in a contract or terms and conditions of supply (which, essentially this is T&C for suply of road tax) I wouldn\'t pursue a challenge to it with any confidence.  Whilst it may reside in a document relating to emissions, the passage is very clear on the term \'engine capacity\'.

I think you\'d have more luck challenging the fact that the V5 and road tax is based on "cylinder capacity" of which we have none so road tax should be free!!!:burnout

At least in that case you could argue that the simplest and clearest interpretation of the words are in your favour.  Always a handy tactic in legal queries.;)

Are you dealing with your local office?  I\'d try to find out if they have this logged at the head office in Swansea against your registration.  If not, it may be best to withdraw and try another local office that might be less aware.  Gonna try my luck next week and can let you know how I get on....  that\'s not to say that they won\'t sell me road tax at the lower rate and then send evrything off to Swansewa for amendment and then change their mind there.:eek

Gregor

I did just send it off to DVLA swansea & is a very Welsh sounding bloke i\'ve been tormenting so kinda out of luck on the local office front as it stands, unless i could try with a photocopy of WGT\'s letter wotcha reckon?
I\'m guna try the sticking to my you have the CC docs & i\'ve had nothing relating to increase (other than emissions related if pushed) & see if they can get me any legal docs in a you have sod all so wot u on about stylee see where it goes although inevitably not holding my breath........
Si (gets ready to emigrate incase i do get everyone 2.6\'d lol)

Well. the garage doing the MOT wouldn\'t give me a letter saying it\'s a 1.3.  Damn.

I do have to say though that they were brilliant and I\'d strngly recommend them to those local to this area.
see this thread (http://www.mazdarotaryclub.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6360)

I think it\'ll look a bit fishy if I get a letter from Pip in Cheshire (assuming he\'s happy to provide one having never seen my car!) and present that with an MOT certificate from Oxford to my local office - especially if they\'re dated within a few days!


I\'ll keep watching and see how you get on Scooby and maybe pursue if you hit success.

Course, in the meantime if you get everyone 2.6\'d it\'ll make no difference to me so I\'ll stay off the lynchmob!:evillaugh

Gregor

..i phoned and got pip to type a short letter stating my car was a 1.3, then sent it off with my V5 document, with the highlighted changes....two weeks later new v5 document with the engine capacity as 1.3.

Marc

me jealous as if lol
Seriously how long ago was that & was it just sent to DVLA or a particular department?
Ta
Si

it was like 6weeks ago....faxed pip the details, inc reg and then he replied with a letter, one week later. Posted it off to dvla, can\'t remember exactly where. On the changes section i wrote 1.3, then inc the letter from Pip and a cover letter just explaining the error....

...received the new v5 documents a couple of weeks later....

..sorry to make you jealous

Marc

Mark,
In the letter you wrote,  how did you explain the error?

Gregor

It don\'t matter DVLA already know about that. The guy I speak a lot at dvla who once tried to get me to pay more tax on rx7\'s
after having a technial ear bashing from me went and asked his manager what tax I should pay and his manager said low tax as a 1308 cc however he did confirm that when mazda register an rx7 they do it as a 2616 because they have an agreement with dvla.

rgds

Brian dont suppose you have a name & address of this DVLA bloke who will do as 1.3 do ya.....?
Si (dont think folks i\'ve tormented r guna do jack (http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/cwm/cwm/cwm14.gif))

I can\'t remember his name but it\'s at my local dvla office in Wimbledon souf London.

rgds

Gregor...

..i didn\'t explain anything..on the dvla form there is a section for amendments,completed that then stated that the letter from Pip was in support of the amendment...

Marc

Well...  A letter of this sort is another thing to try on my agenda and discuss with some folks at Rotorstock.

I\'m gonn have to write some of these things down or I\'ll forget them all when I get there.!

Gregor

(said whilst wearing an asbestos suite.)

Does nobody remember why the government introduced a lower tax rate for smaller engined cars. I\'m sure it was something to do with the environment.
If your main concern is to save yourself £60 a year then why dont you go and buy yourselves a push bike and save yourselves quite a few grand a year instead.

If everybody put as much effort into their work as they have this thread the country would be in a better state, there would be less unemployment and we would be paying a lot less tax overall.

I say bring back workhouses and conscription........................


(tongue firmly in cheek)

a fair point. - and no offence taken here. - (have had similar stick from a few friends over this)

It\'s not the £60 saving for me - I think if that was going to break the bank then an RX is not the car to own.

Personally, I just think it\'s one of the very rare opportunities I get to try and scam a little money back off the government that have me paying tens of thousands in tax every year to support every bugger that can\'t be arsed to go out and, as you say, put some effort into work or take responsibility for their own actions. :reallymad The people who have an extra kid not because they want the kid and can afford it but because they get more off the government out of my taxes for it. :reallymad I pay NI contributions but have private healthcare, dental and pensions and ain\'t been to the docs for almost a decade. :reallymad  I pay road tax to sit in traffic every morning and not get a parking space.  I think that the fuel economy from the REX probably pays the govt back their £60 at the pumps anyway so there really is no need to double the displacement for this. :mad:  

It may go nowhere and seem petty, but I\'m sure we all work hard for our money, so surely we are allowed our little petty attempts at revenge now and again.:bandit

My only other alternative is to join Bish\'s new political party and I don;t think the political system is quite ready for that yet...:)

Gregor

I got screwed over with the whole 1300/2600 V5 too. Mine was registered as 1300 then the buggers at the DVLA sent me a jippy letter... one complaint from me later and bingo, next days post there\'s a nice shiny new V5 saying 2600. Gits. They just changed it like that. 2 days later, another letter saying you owe us more cash cos you\'ve underpaid your tax. damnit.

Well i have just sent a testing letter to the "vehicle policy group" eliment of the DVLA as i was directed to so we\'ll see how that goes, if everyone with 1.3 gets a demand for more money i never did a thing it was that nasty sbelton type! lol
Si

wotcha reckon?:
Hi,
   I’ve been told you’d be the people I now need to speak to having got nowhere quickly elsewhere. Basically my V5 is incorrectly listing my car as 2616cc, previously incorrectly listed as 2600cc. The car in question has registration mark REX.
   Now having read all of your paperwork, guidance notes etc in relation to correcting inaccurate details. Eg V70, V100 & INS160. All I am required to supply to confirm, as in this case, a decrease in cc is written evidence from a garage or manufacturer etc that my vehicle is indeed what I’m saying it is.
I therefore enclosed said written evidence along
with my V5C to ensure there was no problem with this.
   I later received a letter from Ms (edited to remove the innocent lol), whom I believe has already forwarded my details to you, agreeing that my engine is indeed made up of 2 x 654cc rotors which by my calculations makes for 1308cc yet it then multiplies this by 2 again with no real reasoning given other than referring to some directive which no-one can give me or has heard of  & even by it’s name relates to emissions & not to CC which as my vehicle isn’t a new one is all it should surely relate to.
   In absence of any such documents or such like I can see no argument, legal or otherwise as to why I shouldn’t now be given a new V5C showing my CC as the correct 1308cc. As such I would appreciate it if you can either set this matter straight by supplying me with an accurate V5C or alternatively legal documents which validate this inaccurate approach.

   Yours sincerely



   Simon Watkins


Bit sketchy but can\'t wait to see what i get back from that....(http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/lachen/laughing-smiley-013.gif) lol
Si

hehehe, I just had a 20min conversation with a DVLA guy. He said that the only reason they say it\'s a 2600 is \'cos Parkers Car Guide says so. I told him that I wasn\'t paying another £55 just because they\'re going off a book which has no legal standings. He said that if I send in proof that it\'s a 1308cc then they\'d leave me alone.

What\'s his name, address, telephone number & star sign (http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/love/love.gif) lol
Si

Si

Its good that you are continuing this

If you are sucessfull perhaps all registeres as 616cc will be able to have their tax bracket amended

shhh that\'s what my back up plan is, either give me my 1308 & loose £55 or risk me taking you to cort & you loose everyones extra £55 kinda the is it really worth your while argueing with the lord god scooby_si approach?   lol
Si

Had decided to give up, not getting a letter when the MOT was done locally.

Just changed my mind and WGT will be sending me a nice new letter to present to my local DVLA office for the sum of ten english pounds.

Hope it\'s here in time for my road tax at the end of this month.

C\'mon, it\'s gotta be worth a try.

Soon as the letter arrives I\'m off to the DVLA office.

G

Just got my letter from Pip.  Got the reg plate wrong?  got a U instead of a V - reckon they\'ll notice?

Will have to call WGT again on Monday.

Gregor (cutting it fine for having road tax at the end of this month...)

My local office did get a little chimpy when i tried to re register as a 1.3, although a week before i had registered a fresh import as a 1.3. To cut a long story short, the manager of my local branch wanted it confirmed by Mazda so she phoned them and they said it is a 1.3 (well done Mazda), so managed to get a refund on the previous 6 months tax(backdated) and a refund on two months worth of current tax... Bonus.

What did you get from Mazda was it anything in writting i can use?
Cheers
Si

QuoteWhat did you get from Mazda was it anything in writting i   can use?

[/B]

See now I know you meant to type "we":rollin

G

No, nothing written. My local DVLA office just called the local Mazda dealership who confirmed it was a 1.3. Sorry i cant be of more help guys.

that\'s a shame it would of been good if i (AKA the guniea pig for us all (http://img15.photobucket.com/albums/v44/scooby_si/guinea.jpg) lol(http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/otn/wink/smily012.gif)) could of used it i may try my local mazda place see if they were felling helpful.....
Si

How do they work out the capacity then of the old rotary powered motorcycles? Is it done in the same way?

Took a trip to my local DVLA office this week and presented them with a lovely letter from WGT with whih they promptly gave me a years road tax for £110.  Lovely jubbly. :cool

They\'ve sent the V5 off to DVLA head office to be changed so we\'ll see if Scooby\'s cc police are watching at that end.... :mad:

Had a chat witht he guy at the same time about a couple of other things.
Firstly - he was unable to find anything in their regulations about stick on number plates - as far as he could advise me, as long as the plate is the correct size and spacing, mounted on a flat (or as near flat as possible) surface at the front of the car then everything is rosy. :D
Secondly - He said that they\'ve had lots of V5\'s come back incorrect since the new forms were introduced.  Apparently they changed the dept that does it and accuracy appears to have gone out the window.: rolleyes:

called up the woman i\'d previously tormented & after giving her the tracking number for my demands to the "vehicle policy group" or wotever they\'re called she checked & called me back saying they\'re working on it (Si reads between the lines ) fob him off tilleither he gives up, woahahahaha (http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/ed/laugh.gif) as if, or they can create sum BS to cover it........
But nowt specific yet so good luck all those trying the local thing yer havign more luck than me so far......
Si

Well the cc police appear to have caught me.  Instead of a nice new V5 saying 1308cc as per Pip\'s letter, I got a letter saying...

Quotethank you for your recent letter regarding the cylinder capacity of the above mentioned vehicle.  

I enclose a microfilm copy of the V55/5 document used to first register the vehicle.  The independent importer completed the document, and as you will see, the engine size supplied is 2600 (rotary).  

If you feel the details are incorrect, you will need to obtain written confirmation from the manufacturer/importer.

No microfilm copy enclosed though...
Surely this twisted logic actually means "sorry sir, someone said it was 2600cc 6 years ago so it can\'t possibly be wrong."
why is nothing ever simple?  

Still I got my road tax for the lower rate and they haven\'t asked for the extra money...

Well shit, I didn\'t realise I was so lucky actually managing to get my car re-registered. I suppose it helped that my car had only been in the country a couple of months before I started pestering the DVLA. I\'m still living in fear of that little brown DVLA envelope landing on my doormat saying that "actually we\'ve decided your car is 2616cc afterall...ha ha". Just gonna keep my head down now and hope they don\'t notice me!

Shark give \'em a call asking for this alleged evidence......Did you check behind the stamp as you can never tell where zis microfilm can be hidden (erm oops i nearly gave away my secret identity as 007&1/2) oh & i aint got time to get rid of the blooming audit bit on the smilie damn it do work not realise i have important things to do?!?!?!
Reminds me i must give DVLA a wake up call.......
Si

I\'ve just got the doc\'s back for my Cosmo re-registered as 654cc per rotor =1962cc (20b motor) no problems at all. My cars been in the UK since 2000, i just sent a copy from Mazda\'s website showing engine cc of 654 per rotor and a photo showing the engine number 4 weeks later i got my new v5. No cheap tax yet but its probably only a matter of time before the bas***d\'s screw us with a 2.0 litre plus tax. If the info\'s taken from mazda\'s own website they shouldn\'t be able to argue about  654 per rotor

Have you got a link for this Mazda site cant see anything on the .co.uk variety?
Cheers
Si (yes i forgot to call DVLA will do tomorrow & be nice to have sum more evidence....)

Just spoke to the woman who sent me the letter from DVLA.  
Now they\'re asking for sommat from the manufacturer.  to which I\'ve explained I don\'t speak Japanese and neither do they so that\'s a bit pointless.

They\'ve said they\'ll look at it again if I send something from Mazda and that my insurance will not be invalidated by their changing it to 1.3 ??  Odd thing to ask for but...

My insurance company are going to send me a letter saying they don\'t care if the V5 says 1.3 or 2.6.
I\'ll send DVLA that, with Pip\'s letter (again), the RX-8 engine specification stating displacement as 654cc (x2 rotor), the import docs I have stating engine as a 13B-REW, and prints of relevant specification pages from the 1993 RX 7 owners manual.

A covering letter for the whole lot and we\'ll see if they can find another reason to refuse.

balls lady i\'ve been tormenting was on a half day today so i\'d missed her by the time i tried me luckkkkk, booger will try & remember on Monday....
Si

I\'m starting to not like the DVLA people.

After the phone conversation, she sent me another letter which arrived this morning.  

Quote...the correct engine capacity for your vehicle is 2616cc.  This is caluclated from the sum of the swept volumes of each of the rotors of the engine, multiplied by 2.  In this case 2 rotors each of 654cc = 654x2x2 = 2616cc.  This is defined in the Automotive Exhaust Emissions Directive.

Gonna write back and ask for a copy of said document and ask a few questions they\'ll find it difficult to answer.  With a little luck, she\'ll self destruct!

lol (http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/blackeye/hihi.gif) de ja vous that\'s exactly wot i had with previously discussed results.....
PM me the lasses name who\'s been sending you this i\'ll be intreged if it\'s the same one as i\'ve been tormenting er i mean dealing with .........
Si

lol I\'m gonna try some reverse psychology on her, just putting the finishing touchs to my letter, I wanna be a 2616 !! :)

lol er Dave you been getting too many of them women like it big emails?
I called again today & still no joy with getting a response from the "vehicle policy group" or wotever dubious title they have but she is aparently going to chase them especially after i pointed out i wasn\'t going to go quiet & give up.....
Si (AKA small is beautiful lmao)

lol my log book is also wrong then ... it quotes 2300cc\'s it should be either 2292cc or 1146cc. I don\'t think I\'ll bother with all the hassle changing it, too much risk of having to pay a  load of back tax at some date when they find out.

My car is registered as a 1600cc, what the hell is all that about. It sounds like mazda have agreed to register all rx7\'s ans 8\'s as 2616cc or whatever in order that the people who own the cars can pay more tax. I would assume that mazda get some kickback from the government for doing this.

I wouldnt mind paying £160 per year for road tax if they actually spent this much on the roads, just think how immaculate they would be. The fact is that  around £10 out of the £160 goes towards road maintenance/upgrades and the rest goes into the governments pocket to be pissed away on 200% salary increases for politicians etc.

Not that I\'m bitter.

If you really want to be pissed of at the government for ripping you off for driving a car see the website bellow:

http://money.msn.co.uk/MyMoney/Insight/MoneySpinner/ThisWeek/Carsandtax/default.asp

To be fair it\'s not the extra £50 road tax that bugs me, it;s the stupidity of the whole thing....  and it\'s one of the few opportunities I get to make them work for my money  lol

Yipeeeee!
Just talked to a guy in Cardiff - my car is now offcially a 1308cc.

Result1
Thanks for the letter off Pip tip off.

Do you have his name?
Si

Si,

I figure we must both have done something in a previous life.

Wouldn\'t bother me but something that deserves such punishment must have been bloody good fun and I don\'t get to remember it !

group buy on sinning perchance? (http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif) lol
Si

Hi Scoob,
yeah, I\'ll pass it on as soon as I get the new doc\'s. Don\'t want him changing his mind before I have the new reg doc in my sticky little fingers!!

Can I get in on this action too??  Pleease?

DVLA must have gotten my letter.  They\'ve sent me a demand for more money cos the local office only charged me £110 for road tax.

Will have to call and see if it\'s the same jobsworth that\'s refused to change my V5

balls well last time the DVLA lady called me back (after i\'d asked her again wot was going on) she said they were trying to get in touch with chap who gave me that thing i posted before about doubling rotary stuff, cant remember what page it\'s on now.....
So anyway figured it was only a matter of time but got letters back from DVLA today, one is in relaton to my SORN guess they were worried i was giving them hell kuz my car will be back on road soon :rollin lol as if....
Anyway other letter was as suspected & goes blah blah sorry for not getting back sooner yawn
Next paragraph:

QuoteThe term "cylinder capacity" is ment to encompass the total engine capacity, i.e. the total of the swept volumes of all cylinders of a conventional piston combustion engine. In the case of rotary engines, this is calculated from the sum of the swept volumes of each of the rotors in the engine, multiplied by 2. We are told that this is standard engineering practice based on the consolidated Council directive 91/441/EC. Annex 1, para 2.11 of that directive reads:

Engine capacity means:

2.11.1 for reciprocating piston engines , the normal engine swept volume
2.11.2 for rotary (Wankel) engines, double the nominal swept volume.

We have previously sought advice from Mazda Motor Corporation in Japan about the calculation of cylinder capacity for their rotary engined vehicles. They agree that the Department should quote the engine capacity as twice the isplacement. It is our view that Mazda intend the displacement to mean the same as swept volume.

In the circumstances, I am unable to amend the cylinder capaity on your V5. yaddy yaddy yours sincerly Miss soon to be getting an irate phone call from scooby_si lol

So again can i ask a few things of you folks:
Displacement can you or anyone else interpret this to be anything different to what they want to view it as?
Does anyone else have a contact at Mazda whether it be Japan or other who can agree that this is bull sh!t & they can stick it up there little brown starfish? (http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/funny/moon.gif)

Now the numbers of the directive they refer to dont seem to match entirely with the directive the man i spoke to at Mazda gave me but the Annex & para seem to tie up exactly so while i presume it\'s the same, in which case i\'m going back with the well that\'s very nice but you seem to of taken this out of context & if quote them the "This Directive applies to the tailpipe emissions, evaporative emissions, emissions of crankcase gases and the durability of anti-pollution devices for all motor vehicles equipped with positive-ignition engines and the tailpipe emissions" & says nothing about this relating to engine capacity so cannot be used as such legally or otherwise!!!
Dont suppose anyone has the entire copy of this directive just incase thou do they? lol.

Oh well looks like i have a new victim for my torment but any other bits of info evidense or otherwise i can use to help back up my legal high ground would be good so bring it on.....
Cheers
Si

Here\'s a few bits from my last letter to DVLA

the guidance in DVLA Booklet INS160.  

QuoteOn page 10 it states: “For changes to the cylinder capacity (cc). For a decrease, written evidence showing details of engine number and capacity must be produced.”

Displacement information for the RX-7 is publicly available in the technical specifications.  Both the owners manuals and sales literature state 654cc per rotor.  RX-8 Spec says the same if you check out Mazda\'s own website (http://www.mazdarx8.co.uk/upclose/specs/specs2.asp)

Definitions based on google searches...
“swept volume”: The correct definition of this term applies to piston engines and it is the volume swept out in the exhaust stroke.  In the rotary engine, 654cc is the volume swept out in the exhaust stroke from each rotor, making the total 1308cc.
“displacement”: the maximum volume displaced in the chamber at the exhaust stroke.  
This again means 1308cc for an RX7.  
Finally “cylinder capacity”.  A rotary engine has no cylinders, however both of the above as proxy for a better term, mean 1308cc.

There is no mention of doubling the engine capacity in any of the above on DVLA documents V149 or V355/1 which purport to assist owners in calculating duty payable.

I\'m also thinking that our issue here relates to road "tax".  Surely there is some sort of legislation which means that the public punter like you or me should have this information published where we can find it.  How could you levy a tax and not tell people how much they should pay??  

G

yeah baby i like the sound of yer spuds (erm run away Si has bizzarre gob shyte mode on again) that was my logic that no sodding where does it ask for anything more than i have given u & yer just clutching at yer tight fisted BS (http://img15.photobucket.com/albums/v44/scooby_si/bsflag.gif) ass holes!!! Well Si is tighter than any human to of walked the earth so beware!!!!!!!
Guna type me an all out diplomatic fook off letter now lol
Si

you keep yer eyes and ears well away from my spuds.

I\'ve heard about people like you.

Hi all
As I\'m still looking foir my first rotary I spend long hours reading the forums and the tax crusade is fascinating.

It could be that Mazda were willing to agree to the x2 rule to compensate for the rotary \'inefficiency\' in markets that already used cc to set a sliding scale in emissions testing.  (German cars were obliged to run Cats long before UK?)

And just in case it amounts to shooting oneself in the foot:
Would getting all 7\'s re-classified as 1308 have a negative effect at MOT time? (Or will it when the documentation catches up and every MOT station applies 1300cc emission rules to the RX because they have got a book that says they are now 1300\'s?) Aren\'t acceptable levels of exhaust emissions based on cubic capacity ratings?  

It won\'t stop me looking for one whether it\'s 1308 or 2616 but it would be nice to know.

A

OK, now I\'m in the bizarre position of having 2 new reg documents - 1 showing 1308 and the other showing 2616.

Apparently the guy that originally said "no problem" had second thoughts AFTER sending out the "good" one. I recieved the 2616 one a week later explaining that due to some "swept volume x2" crap it should be registered under the higher cc value. He also asked I return the 1308 one inthe reply paid envelope - which he didn\'t enclose.

My question is, will I be ok to keep the 1308 document and try and register it next year as that, or will I get into barney rubble?

what\'s that you say he didnt send the 2nd one recorded & thus there\'s no proof you have done anything wrong? ;)
Si (gota pull finger out & type a damn arsey reply.....AKA aint dunt owt recently with it)

although they are bound to catch up with you & inquire about making up difference be a good excuse to argue it further...:D
Si

have now paid the extra on the road tax but still arguing.  (just don\'t want a nasty fine that I can;t affrod to waste money fighting.)

Last letter gave them the technical specs of the RX7, the RX8, the sales literature and the website info from Mazda, and a question of what is the DVLA\'s position on this - is it fraudulent advertising or not?

Also said, they\'d better stump up this "proof" or I am not going away.

Finally got my rex registered last Tuesday, had to take it to Worcester DVLA to have it \'inspected\' as I had no Japanese documents.  I filled out all the forms needed, writing 1308cc in the appropriate box, and paid my £96(ish) pounds.  Yesterday I got my V5c though the post, and sure enough it\'s a 1.3 still.  That was easy enough! :D

Now I\'ll just keep my head down!

booger reminds me to get round to writing the arsey letter.......
Si

Just renewed my road tax yesterday... £110 for 12 months - bargain! ;)

Iain

The real question is..

...what the hell does engine capacity have to do with it anyway? They don\'t even ask if it\'s FI or NA... so by that logic, a 2-litre Evo FQ running 340bhp is cheaper than a 3.5 litre 350Z running 280bhp.

Let\'s compare some cars I\'ve insured...

205 Pug NA diesel 1.9... 55bhp
Leon TDi 1.9... 110bhp
300ZX TT ... 276bhp (allegedly)
RX8 1.3 or 2.6 ... 225bhp

Guess which one was most expensive? (Even for third-party quotes which I always ask for out of curiosity - so the value of the car shouldn\'t come into it.)


The above discussion applies to taxing anything registered before 01 too of course...

I\'ve just read as much of this thread as I\'ve had time to. I\'d be careful kicking up too much of a stink with the DVLA on this. We\'ve had a similar battle in the past with the Ro80. Assisted by a letter from the Ro80 Club, a number of Ro80\'s were changed to 995cc back in 1999. After this, an Irish Ro80 owner decided to take up the same point with their DVLA equivalent, using our cases in the U.K. as ammunition. It resulted in him failing to achieve any change over there, and after opening up a hornets nest in the DVLA, a number of Ro80 owners suddenly received a new log book stating 2000cc with a covering letter stating their rotary displacement bollocks. If you have a rotary stated on the V5 as it\'s correct volume, i\'d keep your head down and keep quiet. Because it could end up with a lot of others receiving an unwanted V5! ;)

I have just read this thread - out of interest more than anything else. A few things strike me...(note: I am not a lawyer)

QuoteWe have previously sought advice from Mazda Motor Corporation in Japan about the calculation of cylinder capacity for their rotary engined vehicles. They agree that the Department should quote the engine capacity as twice the displacement. It is our view that Mazda intend the displacement to mean the same as swept volume.

1) Where is the actual wording of the agreement with Mazda - could it have been misinterpreted? Why is the wording not public?
2) DVLA took a view that displacement and swept volumes were the same - but is it? and was it really what Mazda had intended?
3) Why was the advice sort initially, was it for the agreement of exhaust emmissions? or was it for a comparison between a boinger and a rotary? or to try to find how to raise our taxes?

QuoteWe are told that this is standard engineering practice based on the consolidated Council directive 91/441/EC. Annex 1, para 2.11 of that directive reads:

4) What this directive in relation to? (bet it is emmisions) and when was it written (bet fairly recently - 2000 onwards).
5) Maybe the agreement with DVLA and Mazda is with the registration of new cars only - hence the reason many imports are correctly registered as 1.3.
6) THe Exhaust emmissions directive only relates to exhaust emissions (as it states in the begining) - and cannot really use the definitions therein for any other purposes.
7) The cubic capacity, swept volume and displacement are what they are and for the rotary eqates to 1308. IT is wrong (and propably illegal) to equate to a Cylinder capacity - since rotaries have no cylinders - however it has the cc, swept volume and displacement which point to 1308. Multiplying x 2 is just ...well illegal.

just my $0.02

You could also argue that sneaking an extra power stroke in on every rev is "illegal," if we\'re playing chop logic.

...anyway, as I think I\'ve said before on this thread - what the bloody hell does engine capacity have to do with anything - emissions, torque, power, straight-line performance, mileage - even in the piston world? The correlation is feeble at best.

Audi TT 1.8 180bhp
Audi A4 1.8 125bhp

Same block and valvetrain, never mind same capacity...

Anyway, I think we\'ve all forgotten something very important here: The DVLA are a bunch of mindless jerks who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. :D

It would make much more sense to tax and/or license directly on emissions and consumption, so we\'re on thin ice here!

I\'ve just found this on a website was gonna post link but it too long so I\'ve pasted it

A rotary\'s displacement or swept volume is calculated just like a piston engine\'s, being the difference between maximum chamber volume and minimum chamber volume multiplied by the number of rotors. You don\'t multiply it by the number of chambers because they only one chamber is fired per engine revolution. This makes a 13B 1308cc.

In the automotive media it became common to multiply this by two because the rotary inhales this volume twice as often as a 4-stroke piston engine. Since the amount of air an engine breathes is almost directly proportial to it\'s power output, this gives a number that makes rotary-powered cars easier to compare to a piston-engine ones (and comparing cars is what the media does). This makes a 13B 2616cc.

In motorsport the rotary\'s swept capacity is usually multiplied by 1.8 as this gives a more accurate way to evenly class rotary-powered cars against piston-powered ones. This makes a 13B 2354cc.

The truth is one can\'t accurately compare a rotary\'s swept volume with a piston\'s. There are too many other differences to use just this one number. In my exerience people who actually argue about whether or not a 13B really is 1.3L usually don\'t fully understand what they\'re talking about.

Hope this is of any help??????

Quote from: zevansAnyway, I think we\'ve all forgotten something very important here: The DVLA are a bunch of mindless jerks who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. :D

actually they\'ll be second, it\'ll be the sad fdukers who design and build AND COMMISSION speed cameras first...........   :reallymad

Quote from: Mark Ideactually they\'ll be second, it\'ll be the sad fdukers who design and build AND COMMISSION speed cameras first...........   :reallymad

Here here :rollin

Quote from: Mark Ideactually they\'ll be second, it\'ll be the sad fdukers who design and build AND COMMISSION speed cameras first...........   :reallymad

I\'ll second that :rollin