Gas Guzzler Tax Eliminated?

**etyu** · 08-01-2007

I was just doing a "Build Your Own" at the MBUSA website and noticed at the summary page that the Gas Guzzler Tax is $0. Does anyone know if this tax still applies to 2008 model year or is this just a blip/mistake at the MBUSA website?

I emailed the salesperson at the local MB and he states he has no information.

MDLSLK55 · 08-01-2007

Gas guzzler tax actually got worse, they're more "accurately" rating them for city/highway mpg, which means lower ratings (and in turn, a higher tax...the tax brackets themselves did not change). The reason it's not showing up is that the 2008 isn't rated yet for the new fuel economy standards.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml

**etyu** · 08-01-2007

Just found this at fueleconomy.gov: early 2008 data, SLK55 AMG 14/20 (city/hwy) and subject to Gas Guzzler Tax

Link: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/feg2000.htm

**-1-** · 08-01-2007

That gas guzzler tax is a tough pill to swallow. Does it really serve as a deterent or just a major irritant? Who gets the money and what's it used for?

**reallife** · 08-01-2007

My wife's Toyota Sienna minivan gets the same. My Toyota 4Runner SUV gets about the same also. Guess which of the three is the official gas guzzler? In the ideal world, I should get a tax break for the SLK because I am occupying space on the roadway for much less time to cover the same distance and the same carbon emission/gas useage. In other words, I get there a lot faster for the same cost to the highway and environment. So why not give my car a discount?

**Cruzer 8** · 08-01-2007

I think they should call it a "if you can afford it tax" Did you notice that over a certain weight that vehicles are exempt I think that if you buy more fuel then you pay more in tax already stop before I enter the rant stage

**dsb** · 08-02-2007

It's my understanding that trucks, minivans and some SUV's are exempt. I agree they should rename it to 'if you can afford it' tax. At least there was truth in the BS 'luxury tax' years ago. Trucks being exempt is BS too. I've seen plenty of lifted trucks getting 9mpg. I think there should be some sort of calculation that comes in play. For example, MPG divided by # seats. Yes, our cars would still be punished, but it would make more sense IMO.

MDLSLK55 · 08-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsb

I think there should be some sort of calculation that comes in play. For example, MPG divided by # seats. Yes, our cars would still be punished, but it would make more sense IMO.

Wait, I don't get that. So, if you have more seats and are able to drive more people around at 16mpg (which is more ppmpg - people per mpg

), wouldn't you be MORE efficient?

cyberdrakon · 08-02-2007

Obviously trucks and SUVs are exempt, otherwise how could they keep GM, Chevy, and Ford afloat! All the loans the government has made them would be lost...too bad for us (USA) toyota is now taking advantage of this really well.

The thing about more seats is, around here everyone drives their 9 seat, lifted, 'de-catted' suburban and 5 seat knobby tired H2s by themself on their daily commute. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE big trucks, but when you use the biggest car you can afford, fix it up for offroad, then use it for your single person commute on the freeway........argh. (if i got another car, i'd be getting a truck, but not for my commute).

**Ynot** · 08-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberdrakon

The thing about more seats is, around here everyone drives their 9 seat, lifted, 'de-catted' suburban and 5 seat knobby tired H2s by themself on their daily commute. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE big trucks, but when you use the biggest car you can afford, fix it up for offroad, then use it for your single person commute on the freeway........argh. (if i got another car, i'd be getting a truck, but not for my commute).

, I wonder the same thing, why get a SUV if you don't go outdoors?

Same applies to modded cars. BBK, CF this, CF that, all these go fast mods and never tracked. At least go and find out if your mods are worth it.

**dsb** · 08-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDLSLK55

Wait, I don't get that. So, if you have more seats and are able to drive more people around at 16mpg (which is more ppmpg - people per mpg

), wouldn't you be MORE efficient?

Correct, that would make it more efficient. BTW, you have an accronym too. Great

**dsb** · 08-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ynot

Same applies to modded cars. BBK, CF this, CF that, all these go fast mods and never tracked. At least go and find out if your mods are worth it.

Totally agree. I understand when people strictly buy cosmetic mods and don't track/drive fast. However, I'll never understand the crowd that buys performance mods (can be very costly) and never do anything with it.

**reallife** · 08-02-2007

I saw an interesting article in this week's Newsweek magazine by Amory Lovins, the alternative energy guru. He pointed out the the new Boeing jet is so much lighter due to CF for the airframe that production is already sold out until 2014. Why not cars? Specifically, why not high tech European cars with the latest, greatest technologies already: Mercedes high end cars like ours? Can you imagine? How much weight could be saved? The car could be stiffer, safer, lighter, even more exclusive. I want one!

**Ynot** · 08-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by reallife

I saw an interesting article in this week's Newsweek magazine by Amory Lovins, the alternative energy guru. He pointed out the the new Boeing jet is so much lighter due to CF for the airframe that production is already sold out until 2014. Why not cars? Specifically, why not high tech European cars with the latest, greatest technologies already: Mercedes high end cars like ours? Can you imagine? How much weight could be saved? The car could be stiffer, safer, lighter, even more exclusive. I want one!

They have those, it's called the Pagani Zonda, Porsche Carrera GT, Enzo, and other super exotics, CF cars are very expensive, and those cars comes at a premium.

Enough CF for you?

**reallife** · 08-02-2007

Yes, that is too much. What I'm talking about is a CF frame, not just body panels which can be relatively ight anyway. I don't like the Cf exterior appearance anyway. Recently, I was talking to an engineer, right here in Rockford, IL who designed and fabricated the molds for the new Boeing's wings. He said the molds as well as the wings and airframe are all CF. They have cornered the market worldwide and that is the main reason CF is so expensive right now. The price will be coming down steeply as new CF production sources are coming on line to supply Boeing. That will make CF much more economical, even to the point that Detroit will eventually be using it for main line production cars in another 10-12 years.

cyberdrakon · 08-02-2007

The pagani zonda doesn't use CF for just the body panels.
They sell a CF SLK already...it's called the SLR.

I seriously doubt mainstream cars will use CF for anything other than body panels for a LONG LONG time. Besides the inherent material cost of using CF, CF is EXTREMELY labour intensive to use (as compared to steel). CF used for structural components need to be woven onto a mold, versus simply poured into a mold. The SLR is probably one of the cheapest cars to use CF for structural purposes, and already incorporates revolutionary cost saving methods of manufacturing it (yet still costs nearly a half million $).

Easty, maybe you can give some input on the difficulties of CF manufacturing?

**reallife** · 08-02-2007

CF isn't really any more labor intensive than using fiberglass cloth or Kevlar for high end canoes and kayaks. It is basically the same process. The fiber panels are mass machine cut, laid up by machine into the molds, moved into the oven for baking, and can then be trimmed by machine. The reason the high end CF cars are expensive really doesn't have much to do with the actual cost of working with CF, aside from the expense of the material, which will be drastically dropping as new sources come on line. There isn't any long term economic reason why CF cars can't be mainstreamed over the next decade or two. Since the majority of fuel energy is used to overcome the initial inertia of the mass of the vehicle, a CF car that weighs half of what a conventional vehicle weighs will be far cheaper to operate. All we need is $200 a barrel oil and $12 a gallon gasoline to push the CF technology along. It is coming a lot sooner than we would like.

08-01-2007	#1 (permalink)
etyu Founding Member #2 / Ambassador Of Good Will Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Orange County, CA Vehicle: 2008 SLK 55 Posts: 5,279 Country: Thanks: 376 Thanked 277 Times in 168 Posts	Gas Guzzler Tax Eliminated? I was just doing a "Build Your Own" at the MBUSA website and noticed at the summary page that the Gas Guzzler Tax is $0. Does anyone know if this tax still applies to 2008 model year or is this just a blip/mistake at the MBUSA website? I emailed the salesperson at the local MB and he states he has no information. __________________ *Eddy* To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Pewter/Beige, PIII package, Airscarf, Hands-Free Communication System, Lighting package Designo Black Leather Cover on e-brake handle, ( To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Bill T), SmartTop v1.0, Kleyman 3BFM (NoRegret Custom), Green Air Filters, *Mod. R170 ant.*, EuroClear sidemarkers w/PIAA PlasmaIon lamps, chromed front & rear turn indicator lamps, PIAA SuperPlasmaGTX front parking lamps, bilateral rear fog lamps enabled.

08-01-2007	#2 (permalink)
MDLSLK55 Elite SLK World Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bucks County, PA & Overland Park, KS (Work) Vehicle: '08 SLK55 AMG Other Toys: '07 Infiniti G35x Posts: 214 Country: Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post	Gas guzzler tax actually got worse, they're more "accurately" rating them for city/highway mpg, which means lower ratings (and in turn, a higher tax...the tax brackets themselves did not change). The reason it's not showing up is that the 2008 isn't rated yet for the new fuel economy standards. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml Last edited by MDLSLK55; 08-01-2007 at 11:11 PM.

08-01-2007	#3 (permalink)
etyu Founding Member #2 / Ambassador Of Good Will Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Orange County, CA Vehicle: 2008 SLK 55 Posts: 5,279 Country: Thanks: 376 Thanked 277 Times in 168 Posts	Just found this at fueleconomy.gov: early 2008 data, SLK55 AMG 14/20 (city/hwy) and subject to Gas Guzzler Tax Link: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/feg2000.htm __________________ *Eddy* To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Pewter/Beige, PIII package, Airscarf, Hands-Free Communication System, Lighting package Designo Black Leather Cover on e-brake handle, ( To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Bill T), SmartTop v1.0, Kleyman 3BFM (NoRegret Custom), Green Air Filters, *Mod. R170 ant.*, EuroClear sidemarkers w/PIAA PlasmaIon lamps, chromed front & rear turn indicator lamps, PIAA SuperPlasmaGTX front parking lamps, bilateral rear fog lamps enabled.

08-01-2007	#4 (permalink)
-1- Don Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Virginia USA Vehicle: SLK 55 ///AMG The MON55TER on the block Posts: 2,224 Country: Thanks: 54 Thanked 57 Times in 41 Posts	That gas guzzler tax is a tough pill to swallow. Does it really serve as a deterent or just a major irritant? Who gets the money and what's it used for? __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. *----------------1-----------------* --------SLK 55 ///AMG--------- THE MON55TER ON THE BLOCK

08-01-2007	#5 (permalink)
reallife Senior SLK World Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Gig Harbor, WA Vehicle: 2006 SLK 55 Posts: 154 Country: Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	My SLK 55 gets 16.5 miles per gallon... My wife's Toyota Sienna minivan gets the same. My Toyota 4Runner SUV gets about the same also. Guess which of the three is the official gas guzzler? In the ideal world, I should get a tax break for the SLK because I am occupying space on the roadway for much less time to cover the same distance and the same carbon emission/gas useage. In other words, I get there a lot faster for the same cost to the highway and environment. So why not give my car a discount?

08-01-2007	#6 (permalink)
Cruzer 8 Elite SLK World Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Peoria, AZ Vehicle: 07 SL 550 Mars Red Posts: 572 Country: Thanks: 31 Thanked 57 Times in 27 Posts	I think they should call it a "if you can afford it tax" Did you notice that over a certain weight that vehicles are exempt I think that if you buy more fuel then you pay more in tax already stop before I enter the rant stage __________________ GENE ---- See My Pic's To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. *To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.* SL 550 Mars Red

08-02-2007	#7 (permalink)
dsb Elite SLK World Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: NorCal Vehicle: '06 slk55 Posts: 1,176 Country: Thanks: 67 Thanked 120 Times in 42 Posts	It's my understanding that trucks, minivans and some SUV's are exempt. I agree they should rename it to 'if you can afford it' tax. At least there was truth in the BS 'luxury tax' years ago. Trucks being exempt is BS too. I've seen plenty of lifted trucks getting 9mpg. I think there should be some sort of calculation that comes in play. For example, MPG divided by # seats. Yes, our cars would still be punished, but it would make more sense IMO. __________________ SOLD! 06 Mercedes Benz SLK55 Caspian Blue / Black & Ash *To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.*

08-02-2007	#9 (permalink)
cyberdrakon Elite SLK World Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: SoCal, USA Vehicle: SLK55 2006 Other Toys: 560SEC 1990, CLK500 2005 Posts: 1,399 Country: Thanks: 24 Thanked 63 Times in 42 Posts	Obviously trucks and SUVs are exempt, otherwise how could they keep GM, Chevy, and Ford afloat! All the loans the government has made them would be lost...too bad for us (USA) toyota is now taking advantage of this really well. The thing about more seats is, around here everyone drives their 9 seat, lifted, 'de-catted' suburban and 5 seat knobby tired H2s by themself on their daily commute. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE big trucks, but when you use the biggest car you can afford, fix it up for offroad, then use it for your single person commute on the freeway........argh. (if i got another car, i'd be getting a truck, but not for my commute).

08-02-2007	#13 (permalink)
reallife Senior SLK World Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Gig Harbor, WA Vehicle: 2006 SLK 55 Posts: 154 Country: Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	CF? I saw an interesting article in this week's Newsweek magazine by Amory Lovins, the alternative energy guru. He pointed out the the new Boeing jet is so much lighter due to CF for the airframe that production is already sold out until 2014. Why not cars? Specifically, why not high tech European cars with the latest, greatest technologies already: Mercedes high end cars like ours? Can you imagine? How much weight could be saved? The car could be stiffer, safer, lighter, even more exclusive. I want one!

08-02-2007	#15 (permalink)
reallife Senior SLK World Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Gig Harbor, WA Vehicle: 2006 SLK 55 Posts: 154 Country: Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Too much CF1 Yes, that is too much. What I'm talking about is a CF frame, not just body panels which can be relatively ight anyway. I don't like the Cf exterior appearance anyway. Recently, I was talking to an engineer, right here in Rockford, IL who designed and fabricated the molds for the new Boeing's wings. He said the molds as well as the wings and airframe are all CF. They have cornered the market worldwide and that is the main reason CF is so expensive right now. The price will be coming down steeply as new CF production sources are coming on line to supply Boeing. That will make CF much more economical, even to the point that Detroit will eventually be using it for main line production cars in another 10-12 years.

08-02-2007	#16 (permalink)
cyberdrakon Elite SLK World Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: SoCal, USA Vehicle: SLK55 2006 Other Toys: 560SEC 1990, CLK500 2005 Posts: 1,399 Country: Thanks: 24 Thanked 63 Times in 42 Posts	The pagani zonda doesn't use CF for just the body panels. They sell a CF SLK already...it's called the SLR. I seriously doubt mainstream cars will use CF for anything other than body panels for a LONG LONG time. Besides the inherent material cost of using CF, CF is EXTREMELY labour intensive to use (as compared to steel). CF used for structural components need to be woven onto a mold, versus simply poured into a mold. The SLR is probably one of the cheapest cars to use CF for structural purposes, and already incorporates revolutionary cost saving methods of manufacturing it (yet still costs nearly a half million $). Easty, maybe you can give some input on the difficulties of CF manufacturing?

08-02-2007	#17 (permalink)
reallife Senior SLK World Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Gig Harbor, WA Vehicle: 2006 SLK 55 Posts: 154 Country: Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	CF production techniques CF isn't really any more labor intensive than using fiberglass cloth or Kevlar for high end canoes and kayaks. It is basically the same process. The fiber panels are mass machine cut, laid up by machine into the molds, moved into the oven for baking, and can then be trimmed by machine. The reason the high end CF cars are expensive really doesn't have much to do with the actual cost of working with CF, aside from the expense of the material, which will be drastically dropping as new sources come on line. There isn't any long term economic reason why CF cars can't be mainstreamed over the next decade or two. Since the majority of fuel energy is used to overcome the initial inertia of the mass of the vehicle, a CF car that weighs half of what a conventional vehicle weighs will be far cheaper to operate. All we need is $200 a barrel oil and $12 a gallon gasoline to push the CF technology along. It is coming a lot sooner than we would like.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
UK Gas Wars	UK-C200	General Discussion	7	07-27-2008 12:09 PM