For anyone still registered as 2616cc

[Shark]

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

the guidance in DVLA Booklet INS160.  

On 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

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

[scooby_si]

yeah baby i like the sound of yer spuds (erm run away http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008\' target=\'_blank\'>http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/18/18_3_110.gif\' border=0> 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 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 http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008\' target=\'_blank\'>http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/11/11_1_211.gif\' border=0> lol
Si

[Shark]

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

I\'ve heard about people like you.

[jinx]

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

[framey]

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?

[scooby_si]

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)

[scooby_si]

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

[Shark]

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.

[WeasleRx7]

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!

Now I\'ll just keep my head down!

[scooby_si]

booger reminds me to get round to writing the arsey letter.......http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZS\' target=\'_blank\'>http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/29/29_3_14.gif\' border=0>
Si

[iaint]

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

Iain

[zevans]

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...

[Ultraman_Cosmo]

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!

[Lesmon]

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

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 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?

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:

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

[zevans]

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.

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