Jump to content

COE vs Engine BHP


Quantum
 Share

Recommended Posts

I read Newspaper that some car dealers (most from Japanese and Korean Car dealers) suggested to linkup COE with car engine BHP,

in term of 100BHP as baseline, every 10BHP higher than the baseline, COE price 10% increase, no ceiling, regardless engine capacity

and most propably LTA might accept the suggest [laugh]

good idea?

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure everyone is going to go mad either by giving or reading these proposals.

 

I have another one. Go by 0-100 sprint. Below 9 sec Cat B and above 9 seconds Cat A. This sprint will have balanced wightage for BHP / Torque / weight / brand etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure everyone is going to go mad either by giving or reading these proposals.

 

I have another one. Go by 0-100 sprint. Below 9 sec Cat B and above 9 seconds Cat A. This sprint will have balanced wightage for BHP / Torque / weight / brand etc

 

change gear slower lor....

 

knn all this COE topics is super bo liao

Link to post
Share on other sites

A "X" bhp NA car in general costs much more than a "X" bhp Forced Induction car.

 

Tagging COE to bhp will categorise low-cost cars together with expensive cars.

 

Doesn't make sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think go by the weight x width x height better, the bigger the car in size it hold up more area of the road, then pay more tax loh [laugh]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Horspower is the lousiest form of baseline to base on.

 

IMHO, it should be based on max 3 combo factors of (i) engine cap (ii) physical size - more critical is the length for passenger car (iii) CO2 emission.

Edited by Kangadrool
Link to post
Share on other sites

The way i see it - the COE system was a garment intervention, now the system has come back to haunt us because it cannot keep up with time.

 

To produce greater benefit, i support the UK system of tax burden according to exhaust emission. Afterall, we have little margin of error from being a smog filled HK or Beijing equivalent if we don't persist in our pursuit of environmental protection.

 

In this regard, as an example, if a 1.4 TSI [Overall fuel economy of 38.70 MPG (or 32.22 US MPG) and emissions of 174 g/km] and 2.4 NA [Toyota Camry overall fuel economy of 32.80 MPG (or 27.31 US MPG) and emissions of 206 g/km] engines can produce the similar bhp, the turbocharged version is actually the more environmentally friendly option.

 

Thus, I do not support the bhp based COE system.

Edited by Mach23
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think go by the weight x width x height better, the bigger the car in size it hold up more area of the road, then pay more tax loh [laugh]

COE is about the number and not the size!

Link to post
Share on other sites

the good point is to limit those top grade car buyer, e.g Ferrari some model 600bhp over and w/o COE price already one million over, current COE even if up to 100k, also is a peanut compare to car price, if calculated by new COE system, it has to suffer 700k over COE + 1 million car price, [:p]

Edited by Quantum
Link to post
Share on other sites

if they do tag this way, means any modding that increase bhp by even 5 will be considered illegal as u paid only the COE for X and NOT X+5hp..

 

bullsh!t suggestion

Link to post
Share on other sites

if they do tag this way, means any modding that increase bhp by even 5 will be considered illegal as u paid only the COE for X and NOT X+5hp..

 

bullsh!t suggestion

don't worry lah,

manufacture just stating lower bhp in spec, no harm to buyer

you tot lta so free to test every engine actual bhp [:p]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...