Yes, that’s why I’m confused - some articles, (like Gregg’s above) say that the additional fee for an expensive car will be payable from 2025 on cars bought now.
Others seem to agree with Chris that the above £40k premium will only apply to cars first registered after April 2025.
If you look at the actual government stuff, which is what Chris quoted, then it’s clear that it won’t apply to cars bought before 2025.
However, it’s entirely plausible that the government will change the law before then anyway. You can’t really make plans based on what might happen with any government, least of all this one!
ignore the £520 as you won’t pay the luxury tax for a car purchased now
Think it will actually be
£10 for the first year and £165 per year after that
Zero emission cars first registered on or after 1 April 2017 will be liable to pay the lowest first year rate of VED which currently applies to vehicles with CO2 emissions 1 to 50g/km. From the second year of registration onwards, zero emission cars will move to the standard annual rate.
This seems to cover it quite well
What are the 2025 VED changes?
VED, sometimes referred to as “road tax” or “car tax”, has been used in the past to encourage the purchase of low-emission or zero-emission vehicles by offering lower rates for less polluting cars and higher rates for ‘gas-guzzlers’. However, under the new plan, zero-emission cars will be placed in the lowest tax rate, with a VED of £10 for the first year and £165 per year thereafter. Additionally, the exemption for EVs from the “expensive car supplement” will be eliminated, meaning that any car with a list price of £40,000 or more will incur an additional £355 charge for five years beginning in the second year of ownership, after which the rate will return to the standard rate. This could result in an annual cost of around £520 for some EV owners.
Will the 2025 VED changes affect me if I already own an electric vehicle?
The changes to VED for zero-emission cars will also be backdated to vehicles registered after April 1, 2017, meaning that individuals currently paying no VED will now be required to pay the standard rate of £165 per year. Low- and zero-emission cars registered between March 1, 2001 and March 30, 2017 and currently in Band A will be moved to Band B and will have to pay £20 per year, making these vehicles cheaper to operate than those registered after the 2017 cut-off. Zero-emission vans will also be subject to the £290 rate for ICE light goods vehicles, while zero-emission motorcycles and trikes will be moved to the lowest band, currently at £22. Cars classified as “alternative fuels,” which currently receive a small discount on the standard rate, will also be moved to the £165 rate.
“The Expensive Car Supplement exemption for EVs is due to end in 2025. New zero emission cars registered on or after 1 April 2025 will be liable to pay the expensive car supplement where eligible (currently those with a list price of or exceeding £40,000 are liable).”
According to that, if you buy it now you will just move to the standard rate in 2025, and wont be liable for the expensive car supplement
Ooh this is interesting…
https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1651165843131183105?t=TcwhNHJ55IdXfeqpiuWhrw&s=19
The E10 figures refer to the amount of biofuel in petrol. But is biofuel a good thing? How efficient is it compared to, say, solar panels to drive EVs?
Using solar is 112x more efficient than using biofuel, in terms of land usage. That’s a lot!
(And yes, I think that solar farms in this country are really ugly, I would take like to see them made into mixed-usage systems, even if the other use is basically going wild)
was the research behind this funded by the petro chemical industry?
and obviously it ignores the fact that globally the best sites for solar probably cant sustain wheat or beet crops
Ann’s test drive of the Cupra is booked for Friday afternoon 
Must admit, I do like the looks of the Born. It also has a couple of features that appeal - the 77kw version will get her down to Ilford and back (186miles) easily without needing a recharge and that version also comes with a HUD, so she’ll not have worry about taking her eyes off the road, like she did in the 3.
I thought E10 was up to 10% of the fuel is bioethanol.
AFAIK ethanol is bad for an engine and above 10% will cause serious damage to seals, pipes, fuel pumps and even metal etc.
My neighbour has the HUD in his Mazda.
He loves it.
I test drove an iD3 with it and it was good.
Though you just don’t need it as much as you think, as I have not once missed it with the model 3.
Want this, just not in the hideous spec of the first one he shows. Seems good value for money compared to the competition
I had the HUD on my Mazda too. Loved it.
Not having it was one of the hardest things to get used to on the MG.
After owning it for a year, there are waaay harder things to get used to on the shitbox*
*marginally unkind, but as (possibly) my last proper car, I will have the “experience” to live with for the rest of my days.
Life really hasn’t turned out the way I was expecting 
Yeahbut…you are sitting much further back than Ann.
Also, glancing down at the speed she could probably cope with but she loves using sat-nav.
With a HUD, directions would be also be displayed on the windscreen.
True.
Amazing how much stuff you think you need, you don’t, though.
Tesla are trying to get people used to not driving and being driven. Not quite there yet!!
I can see why that would be a real thing. Both Claire and I find it really easy to see speed and map on the Tesla, but if you are much closer to the screen it could be a thing.
I would still advise you to consider the Tesla though - the charging system of just plugging in to the supercharger is likely to be huge for someone who is averse to faff. Otherwise it may actually be best to get a plugin hybrid…
Yep, she’s already expressed nervousness about the whole charging on the road thing, hence considering the 77kw ID3/Born which has a range similar to the standard range model 3.
The only journey she makes other than local shopping etc is down to daughters, so it would be home charging only.
I have always thought that in a world struggling to feed its population bio-fuels were never a viable solution to proliferation of IC engined vehicles.
Extracting CO2 from the atmosphere to make fuel is probably going to be tiny volume and used to justify the continuation of motor racing rather than be of any practical use - though I hope a lower energy version will be developed anyway.
I fear trying to make high density energy fuel without using a lot of energy is a bit like trying to invent a perpetual motion machine.
I wonder if hydrogen could work for racing? It’s really easy to make, after all, and could mean that only a very small battery would be needed.
Not sure a 5,000 PSI liquid hydrogen tank in a F1 race car would be a good idea
