mike, BMW, Audi, Caddy sell plenty of 4 cyl models. My guess is that MB knows (assumes?) most buyers don't care that much, as long as it drives nice. and has a star! 6.4 is not slow for most people, and those motors tend to have lots of usable torque. Plus probably the cheapest one to introduce. and of course, it gets better MPG (at least on the sticker).
Maybe trying to get people used to the idea, since the "gotta have the newest thing" types will probably be fine with that.
I haven't driven a BMW, MB or Audi with a 4 cylinder turbo. Turbos typically have good midrange power and feel. I know my 06 Passat 2.0t did. My question is are these new engines as refined (NVH) as the 6 cylinders? It would be a disappointment to me if I was spending that much on a premium car and find the engine, though powerful, not sound as nice or be as smooth as say a lesser car with a V6.
Remember, I drove the C300 with the 2.0 T for a week. The engine was very potent as I mentioned in my review, but with 400+ lbs more in weight, I have many doubts. The new 9-speed auto transmission might make a difference, but that remains to be seen.
My dealer said he would call me as soon as a loaded up one arrives next month with all the new technology. I'll drive it onto the Turnpike to see if it has enough spunk to merge nicely with traffic. BTW, they increased the starting price of the E300 by about $1000 - and that's with going from a 302 hp V6 to a 241 hp 4. So they are pricing the car heavily. A fairly nicely equipped E300 will MSRP for over $60,000 and a loaded up one for over $67,000. That's a lot of money for an E Class with a 4 cylinder engine, IMHO!
they do a pretty good job with isolation these days. And the sound seems to be all artificially piped in anyway, so can make it sound like anything they want!
GG has the 2.0T in his CTS, and seems to love the motor.
Yeah....I do like the 2.0 in the CTS. Initial throttle tip in has the motor with a nice growl, then becomes relatively silent once underway.
The 2.0 Benz uses produces little sound. It seems likethe motor is working, but it's far away.
The 2.0 in the BMW emits a bit more sound than the others I've driven. Not bad sound, but a bit more racous.
The 2.0 in the GTI (not sure if it's the same one used in the A6) sounds like a mechanical party.
In all of them, torque is strong and power is linear. In the CTS, you'd be hard pressed to note any lag.
Maybe the local VW dealer we're talking to is the exception to the rule, but so far are very easy to work with and seem to want to make a deal. We'll find out tomorrow if that's true or not as they're trying toget exactly what my son wants, regardless of how rare it is in the market.
States get a LOT of tax revenue, over and over and over again, on just one car. Doesn't seem right, does it?
Lots of things don't seem right when the government is involved: Gambling is ok if the government is involved. No proof red light cameras cut down on accidents, but the government can make lots of money from them.
By the way, I read about a way that really cuts down on traffic light corner accidents, but you can't generate money from it. One is to have longer amber lights...just need 2 or 3 extra seconds, and the second is to have a red light in both directions for an extra two seconds. Those two things actually make a big difference.
I think most studies that haven't been corrupted or doctored show that red light cameras actually increase accidents, rather than reduce them. Also, in actuality, as little as 1 second extra yellow light time is plenty to drastically reduce red light running and make intersections safer. Also, drivers should be trained to only go forward on green when it is safe to do so; not just blindly go when the light turns green.
Some NMA members recently got a Philadelphia Traffic Engineer (PE) to admit the reason they added lots of wide bike lanes wasn't due to the number of bicyclists, but to slow people down with purposely poor traffic engineering.
I'm with the NMA on this issue, bicyclists should thank motorists for the roads and bike lanes the car and fuel taxes pay for. In other words, bicyclists are leeches on the roadways they don't pay for.
You wouldn't have a link to that would you? If true that would be a shocking admission.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Mike, if I get one, it will be a couple years used anywY for 1/2 the price! I would be more likely to end up in a 15 or 16 instead of an early new style.
As to the VW, most likely it is like the diesel stick wagon holy grail. Rare item, but very few actual buyers!
One of my kids got a dog. It's a female, so it's named Lulu (after Lou Gehrig). If it was a male, it would have been be Thurman(named after my Dad's favorite player).
Is that a Samoyed puppy? We had Toklat, a wonderful Samoyed who managed to live 12 years. Very good natured dog that loved everybody.
GG - the reason it sounds like a mechanical party in the GTI is because the sound isn't real. It has an electronic sound generator for Engine noise called a Soundaktor. If you unplug it, inside the car sounds almost like a Camry.
2025 Jetta GLI Autobahn, 2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xE
GG - the reason it sounds like a mechanical party in the GTI is because the sound isn't real. It has an electronic sound generator for Engine noise called a Soundaktor. If you unplug it, inside the car sounds almost like a Camry.
So they're piping in sound to fool people as to the real sound of the motor? That's a lot like faking emissions and mileage tests. LOL
GG - the reason it sounds like a mechanical party in the GTI is because the sound isn't real. It has an electronic sound generator for Engine noise called a Soundaktor. If you unplug it, inside the car sounds almost like a Camry.
So they're piping in sound to fool people as to the real sound of the motor? That's a lot like faking emissions and mileage tests. LOL
Basically. Except you can control the volume and intensity. Also, for those who really don't like it, you can pop the hood and unplug it.
It doesn't bother me at all, so I just leave it.
2025 Jetta GLI Autobahn, 2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xE
States get a LOT of tax revenue, over and over and over again, on just one car. Doesn't seem right, does it?
Lots of things don't seem right when the government is involved: Gambling is ok if the government is involved. No proof red light cameras cut down on accidents, but the government can make lots of money from them.
By the way, I read about a way that really cuts down on traffic light corner accidents, but you can't generate money from it. One is to have longer amber lights...just need 2 or 3 extra seconds, and the second is to have a red light in both directions for an extra two seconds. Those two things actually make a big difference.
I think most studies that haven't been corrupted or doctored show that red light cameras actually increase accidents, rather than reduce them. Also, in actuality, as little as 1 second extra yellow light time is plenty to drastically reduce red light running and make intersections safer. Also, drivers should be trained to only go forward on green when it is safe to do so; not just blindly go when the light turns green.
Some NMA members recently got a Philadelphia Traffic Engineer (PE) to admit the reason they added lots of wide bike lanes wasn't due to the number of bicyclists, but to slow people down with purposely poor traffic engineering.
I'm with the NMA on this issue, bicyclists should thank motorists for the roads and bike lanes the car and fuel taxes pay for. In other words, bicyclists are leeches on the roadways they don't pay for.
You wouldn't have a link to that would you? If true that would be a shocking admission.
Oldfarmer, do you want links to the red light cameras or the bike lanes? If it is red light cameras just google, red light cameras, do they work or similar questions. There is no real proof they make a positive difference, in some cases number of accidents actually increase (many times from drivers stopping too fast). Some surveys say rear end accident rates may increase, but the red light cameras prevent more T-bone accidents, which are more serious. However, the experts believe the better way to prevent accidents is to make a longer amber light, and to have red showing in both directions for 2 seconds.
a lot of cars pipe in noise. In the last car and driver, they did a comparison of various turbo and not turbo models. One direct compare was an F150 (5.0 vs. ecoboost). I recall from that one the turbo sounded (inside) somewhat like a V8, but totally artificial.
it does seem silly to me to waste money on that feature, instead of something useful!
a lot of cars pipe in noise. In the last car and driver, they did a comparison of various turbo and not turbo models. One direct compare was an F150 (5.0 vs. ecoboost). I recall from that one the turbo sounded (inside) somewhat like a V8, but totally artificial.
it does seem silly to me to waste money on that feature, instead of something useful!
I'm not sure the Soundaktor is nearly enough to pay for an extra 2 cylinders, and also, there is CAFE to deal with. I like the sound enough to where I'm OK with it being artificial. At least you know what is going on with your ears alone when you hit the gas. That being said, I do prefer the natural pleasing sound of the 4.2L V8 more, but those Audi's couldn't pass many gas stations without stopping.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
mike, BMW, Audi, Caddy sell plenty of 4 cyl models. My guess is that MB knows (assumes?) most buyers don't care that much, as long as it drives nice. and has a star! 6.4 is not slow for most people, and those motors tend to have lots of usable torque. Plus probably the cheapest one to introduce. and of course, it gets better MPG (at least on the sticker).
Maybe trying to get people used to the idea, since the "gotta have the newest thing" types will probably be fine with that.
I haven't driven a BMW, MB or Audi with a 4 cylinder turbo. Turbos typically have good midrange power and feel. I know my 06 Passat 2.0t did. My question is are these new engines as refined (NVH) as the 6 cylinders? It would be a disappointment to me if I was spending that much on a premium car and find the engine, though powerful, not sound as nice or be as smooth as say a lesser car with a V6.
I'll put in another vote for the 4-cylinder turbos being powerful up and down the rev range, they are smooth (the best ones at least), but yes, the sound is typically artificially enhanced. I got my old ;06 2.0T A3 to sound good by modifying the exhaust, but I was a rebel in CA.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
mike, BMW, Audi, Caddy sell plenty of 4 cyl models. My guess is that MB knows (assumes?) most buyers don't care that much, as long as it drives nice. and has a star! 6.4 is not slow for most people, and those motors tend to have lots of usable torque. Plus probably the cheapest one to introduce. and of course, it gets better MPG (at least on the sticker).
Maybe trying to get people used to the idea, since the "gotta have the newest thing" types will probably be fine with that.
I haven't driven a BMW, MB or Audi with a 4 cylinder turbo. Turbos typically have good midrange power and feel. I know my 06 Passat 2.0t did. My question is are these new engines as refined (NVH) as the 6 cylinders? It would be a disappointment to me if I was spending that much on a premium car and find the engine, though powerful, not sound as nice or be as smooth as say a lesser car with a V6.
Remember, I drove the C300 with the 2.0 T for a week. The engine was very potent as I mentioned in my review, but with 400+ lbs more in weight, I have many doubts. The new 9-speed auto transmission might make a difference, but that remains to be seen.
My dealer said he would call me as soon as a loaded up one arrives next month with all the new technology. I'll drive it onto the Turnpike to see if it has enough spunk to merge nicely with traffic. BTW, they increased the starting price of the E300 by about $1000 - and that's with going from a 302 hp V6 to a 241 hp 4. So they are pricing the car heavily. A fairly nicely equipped E300 will MSRP for over $60,000 and a loaded up one for over $67,000. That's a lot of money for an E Class with a 4 cylinder engine, IMHO!
It is just a pet peeve of mine, but I don't like the way some of the 4 cyl turbo's run the cooling fan after you turn the engine off. I suppose it is to cool down the turbo.
States get a LOT of tax revenue, over and over and over again, on just one car. Doesn't seem right, does it?
Lots of things don't seem right when the government is involved: Gambling is ok if the government is involved. No proof red light cameras cut down on accidents, but the government can make lots of money from them.
By the way, I read about a way that really cuts down on traffic light corner accidents, but you can't generate money from it. One is to have longer amber lights...just need 2 or 3 extra seconds, and the second is to have a red light in both directions for an extra two seconds. Those two things actually make a big difference.
I think most studies that haven't been corrupted or doctored show that red light cameras actually increase accidents, rather than reduce them. Also, in actuality, as little as 1 second extra yellow light time is plenty to drastically reduce red light running and make intersections safer. Also, drivers should be trained to only go forward on green when it is safe to do so; not just blindly go when the light turns green.
Some NMA members recently got a Philadelphia Traffic Engineer (PE) to admit the reason they added lots of wide bike lanes wasn't due to the number of bicyclists, but to slow people down with purposely poor traffic engineering.
I'm with the NMA on this issue, bicyclists should thank motorists for the roads and bike lanes the car and fuel taxes pay for. In other words, bicyclists are leeches on the roadways they don't pay for.
You wouldn't have a link to that would you? If true that would be a shocking admission.
Oldfarmer, do you want links to the red light cameras or the bike lanes? If it is red light cameras just google, red light cameras, do they work or similar questions. There is no real proof they make a positive difference, in some cases number of accidents actually increase (many times from drivers stopping too fast). Some surveys say rear end accident rates may increase, but the red light cameras prevent more T-bone accidents, which are more serious. However, the experts believe the better way to prevent accidents is to make a longer amber light, and to have red showing in both directions for 2 seconds.
No, I want to see in black and white that a government official admitted to deliberately designing a road hazzard.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I had one car that would run the fan for a while if you turned it off when still real hot. I just forget now which one it was! Was a little bit unnerving.
I've had several that would do that, at least occasionally. My present 2015 F150, with the twin turbo V6 2.7L, does that routinely. But only for 5 to 10 seconds.
States get a LOT of tax revenue, over and over and over again, on just one car. Doesn't seem right, does it?
Lots of things don't seem right when the government is involved: Gambling is ok if the government is involved. No proof red light cameras cut down on accidents, but the government can make lots of money from them.
By the way, I read about a way that really cuts down on traffic light corner accidents, but you can't generate money from it. One is to have longer amber lights...just need 2 or 3 extra seconds, and the second is to have a red light in both directions for an extra two seconds. Those two things actually make a big difference.
I think most studies that haven't been corrupted or doctored show that red light cameras actually increase accidents, rather than reduce them. Also, in actuality, as little as 1 second extra yellow light time is plenty to drastically reduce red light running and make intersections safer. Also, drivers should be trained to only go forward on green when it is safe to do so; not just blindly go when the light turns green.
Some NMA members recently got a Philadelphia Traffic Engineer (PE) to admit the reason they added lots of wide bike lanes wasn't due to the number of bicyclists, but to slow people down with purposely poor traffic engineering.
I'm with the NMA on this issue, bicyclists should thank motorists for the roads and bike lanes the car and fuel taxes pay for. In other words, bicyclists are leeches on the roadways they don't pay for.
You wouldn't have a link to that would you? If true that would be a shocking admission.
Oldfarmer, do you want links to the red light cameras or the bike lanes? If it is red light cameras just google, red light cameras, do they work or similar questions. There is no real proof they make a positive difference, in some cases number of accidents actually increase (many times from drivers stopping too fast). Some surveys say rear end accident rates may increase, but the red light cameras prevent more T-bone accidents, which are more serious. However, the experts believe the better way to prevent accidents is to make a longer amber light, and to have red showing in both directions for 2 seconds.
No, I want to see in black and white that a government official admitted to deliberately designing a road hazzard.
Farmer, I don't think you will ever see that, but there is some controversy. It has been found that in some cities, Chicago to name one, the yellow light is shorter than recommended where red light cameras are used. To me, this seems like a blatant money grab.
States get a LOT of tax revenue, over and over and over again, on just one car. Doesn't seem right, does it?
Lots of things don't seem right when the government is involved: Gambling is ok if the government is involved. No proof red light cameras cut down on accidents, but the government can make lots of money from them.
By the way, I read about a way that really cuts down on traffic light corner accidents, but you can't generate money from it. One is to have longer amber lights...just need 2 or 3 extra seconds, and the second is to have a red light in both directions for an extra two seconds. Those two things actually make a big difference.
I think most studies that haven't been corrupted or doctored show that red light cameras actually increase accidents, rather than reduce them. Also, in actuality, as little as 1 second extra yellow light time is plenty to drastically reduce red light running and make intersections safer. Also, drivers should be trained to only go forward on green when it is safe to do so; not just blindly go when the light turns green.
Some NMA members recently got a Philadelphia Traffic Engineer (PE) to admit the reason they added lots of wide bike lanes wasn't due to the number of bicyclists, but to slow people down with purposely poor traffic engineering.
I'm with the NMA on this issue, bicyclists should thank motorists for the roads and bike lanes the car and fuel taxes pay for. In other words, bicyclists are leeches on the roadways they don't pay for.
You wouldn't have a link to that would you? If true that would be a shocking admission.
Oldfarmer, do you want links to the red light cameras or the bike lanes? If it is red light cameras just google, red light cameras, do they work or similar questions. There is no real proof they make a positive difference, in some cases number of accidents actually increase (many times from drivers stopping too fast). Some surveys say rear end accident rates may increase, but the red light cameras prevent more T-bone accidents, which are more serious. However, the experts believe the better way to prevent accidents is to make a longer amber light, and to have red showing in both directions for 2 seconds.
No, I want to see in black and white that a government official admitted to deliberately designing a road hazzard.
Look at Page 8, but you should probably read the completely unedited correspondence starting earlier.
It's all part of this backwards "vision zero" sinister anti-automobile philosophy. They do the same things with "traffic calming" devices like narrower lanes, obstructions, barricades, speed bumps, and other obstacles. Instead of reducing traffic by making it flow better, they make it flow worse, which is supposed to deter people from driving all together.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
mike, BMW, Audi, Caddy sell plenty of 4 cyl models. My guess is that MB knows (assumes?) most buyers don't care that much, as long as it drives nice. and has a star! 6.4 is not slow for most people, and those motors tend to have lots of usable torque. Plus probably the cheapest one to introduce. and of course, it gets better MPG (at least on the sticker).
Maybe trying to get people used to the idea, since the "gotta have the newest thing" types will probably be fine with that.
I haven't driven a BMW, MB or Audi with a 4 cylinder turbo. Turbos typically have good midrange power and feel. I know my 06 Passat 2.0t did. My question is are these new engines as refined (NVH) as the 6 cylinders? It would be a disappointment to me if I was spending that much on a premium car and find the engine, though powerful, not sound as nice or be as smooth as say a lesser car with a V6.
Remember, I drove the C300 with the 2.0 T for a week. The engine was very potent as I mentioned in my review, but with 400+ lbs more in weight, I have many doubts. The new 9-speed auto transmission might make a difference, but that remains to be seen.
My dealer said he would call me as soon as a loaded up one arrives next month with all the new technology. I'll drive it onto the Turnpike to see if it has enough spunk to merge nicely with traffic. BTW, they increased the starting price of the E300 by about $1000 - and that's with going from a 302 hp V6 to a 241 hp 4. So they are pricing the car heavily. A fairly nicely equipped E300 will MSRP for over $60,000 and a loaded up one for over $67,000. That's a lot of money for an E Class with a 4 cylinder engine, IMHO!
It is just a pet peeve of mine, but I don't like the way some of the 4 cyl turbo's run the cooling fan after you turn the engine off. I suppose it is to cool down the turbo.
In my Audi's, I've only noticed the fan staying on after the engine was off when I just climbed Palomar mountain in a spirited fashion. I've noticed the VW diesel engine likes the fan to stay on more regularly too.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
mike, BMW, Audi, Caddy sell plenty of 4 cyl models. My guess is that MB knows (assumes?) most buyers don't care that much, as long as it drives nice. and has a star! 6.4 is not slow for most people, and those motors tend to have lots of usable torque. Plus probably the cheapest one to introduce. and of course, it gets better MPG (at least on the sticker).
Maybe trying to get people used to the idea, since the "gotta have the newest thing" types will probably be fine with that.
I haven't driven a BMW, MB or Audi with a 4 cylinder turbo. Turbos typically have good midrange power and feel. I know my 06 Passat 2.0t did. My question is are these new engines as refined (NVH) as the 6 cylinders? It would be a disappointment to me if I was spending that much on a premium car and find the engine, though powerful, not sound as nice or be as smooth as say a lesser car with a V6.
Remember, I drove the C300 with the 2.0 T for a week. The engine was very potent as I mentioned in my review, but with 400+ lbs more in weight, I have many doubts. The new 9-speed auto transmission might make a difference, but that remains to be seen.
My dealer said he would call me as soon as a loaded up one arrives next month with all the new technology. I'll drive it onto the Turnpike to see if it has enough spunk to merge nicely with traffic. BTW, they increased the starting price of the E300 by about $1000 - and that's with going from a 302 hp V6 to a 241 hp 4. So they are pricing the car heavily. A fairly nicely equipped E300 will MSRP for over $60,000 and a loaded up one for over $67,000. That's a lot of money for an E Class with a 4 cylinder engine, IMHO!
It is just a pet peeve of mine, but I don't like the way some of the 4 cyl turbo's run the cooling fan after you turn the engine off. I suppose it is to cool down the turbo.
In my Audi's, I've only noticed the fan staying on after the engine was off when I just climbed Palomar mountain in a spirited fashion. I've noticed the VW diesel engine likes the fan to stay on more regularly too.
I always enjoyed the drive up Palomar Mt. I enjoyed the tour of the observatory as well. It's a huge telescope and I was allowed to sit in the chair and look through the lens - what a treat. Beautiful area of Southern Counties in Southern California. I miss those excursions up the mountains like Big Bear and Idlewild near Palm Springs.
Thanks for the idea, Idyllwild sounds like the perfect place to break past 1,000 miles in the TT-S. Isn't it spelled Idyllwild? I'd go up Pine to Palms highway, come back on the wonderful highway through Idyllwild.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Thanks for the idea, Idyllwild sounds like the perfect place to break past 1,000 miles in the TT-S. Isn't it spelled Idyllwild? I'd go up Pine to Palms highway, come back on the wonderful highway through Idyllwild.
Your spelling is correct! Idyllwild is 6000-7000 feet above Hemet and Palm Springs. Used to go up there in the summer to get away from the desert heat.
The old name of NY Kennedy Airport too (not sure about the airport version spelling though)
Aba, I'm not sold on turbo's yet, mostly because I want to see some durability experience on them given the heat they can throw off. I ended up with a turbo on a Mustang convertible a few months ago and have to say it drove better than I expected without any real noticeable turbo lag. I am also curious about Ford truck owner experience towing with them instead of a V8.
States get a LOT of tax revenue, over and over and over again, on just one car. Doesn't seem right, does it?
Lots of things don't seem right when the government is involved: Gambling is ok if the government is involved. No proof red light cameras cut down on accidents, but the government can make lots of money from them.
By the way, I read about a way that really cuts down on traffic light corner accidents, but you can't generate money from it. One is to have longer amber lights...just need 2 or 3 extra seconds, and the second is to have a red light in both directions for an extra two seconds. Those two things actually make a big difference.
I think most studies that haven't been corrupted or doctored show that red light cameras actually increase accidents, rather than reduce them. Also, in actuality, as little as 1 second extra yellow light time is plenty to drastically reduce red light running and make intersections safer. Also, drivers should be trained to only go forward on green when it is safe to do so; not just blindly go when the light turns green.
Some NMA members recently got a Philadelphia Traffic Engineer (PE) to admit the reason they added lots of wide bike lanes wasn't due to the number of bicyclists, but to slow people down with purposely poor traffic engineering.
I'm with the NMA on this issue, bicyclists should thank motorists for the roads and bike lanes the car and fuel taxes pay for. In other words, bicyclists are leeches on the roadways they don't pay for.
You wouldn't have a link to that would you? If true that would be a shocking admission.
Oldfarmer, do you want links to the red light cameras or the bike lanes? If it is red light cameras just google, red light cameras, do they work or similar questions. There is no real proof they make a positive difference, in some cases number of accidents actually increase (many times from drivers stopping too fast). Some surveys say rear end accident rates may increase, but the red light cameras prevent more T-bone accidents, which are more serious. However, the experts believe the better way to prevent accidents is to make a longer amber light, and to have red showing in both directions for 2 seconds.
No, I want to see in black and white that a government official admitted to deliberately designing a road hazzard.
Farmer, I don't think you will ever see that, but there is some controversy. It has been found that in some cities, Chicago to name one, the yellow light is shorter than recommended where red light cameras are used. To me, this seems like a blatant money grab.
Red light cameras are controversial in Tampa now...some want to get rid of the red light cameras. Seems Tampa installed RLCs, and then shortened the amber light time in some intersections. The revenue stream has been terrific, but, there is no proof they cut down on accidents. I am sure you can google it.
Illinois and Chicago rely on ever increasing taxes and fees because they don't have the will to cut anything back. But it is low tax states like Texas that are experiencing all the growth and success, while the high tax and fee states tend to be lagging. The rote response it something like "well, Texas is a newer place", but I think Dallas and Houston have been around for a pretty long time and have incurred much more rapid growth.
The government in Canada has a new tax grab and I am wondering if it is going on in the US. People don't even know it is going on. Here is how it works:
Let's say, for example, that the price of a new minivan is $35,000, plus $900 in add-on equipment like a roof rack or bumper hitch, and the manufacturer is offering a "rebate" or "cash bonus" of $4,000. The government obliges the dealer to add $35,000 to $900, for a subtotal of $35,900, then immediately apply the harmonized federal-provincial sales tax, which in Ontario is 13 per cent, or $4,667, for a total of $40,567. The dealer is then told to apply the $4,000 advertised price break to that fully taxed total, meaning the customer pays $36,567.
If, however, the customer was taxed on what he or she actually paid, it would be a different story. The sales tax would be applied on the real price — $35,900 minus the $4,000 "rebate" — or $31,900. Calculated that way, the tax would be $4,147, and the bottom line $36,047 - a difference of $520.
The dealer doesn't make an extra cent because of the government-imposed calculation. The entire $520 extra goes to the government in taxes.
And the buyer effectively winds up paying tax on $4,000 he or she didn't really spend at all.
Even though the CRA (Canada Revenue) respectfully declines to discuss the subject, its rationale is a matter of public record.
The government takes the view that the rebate, or cash bonus, or whatever gimmicky name it's called, is a completely separate transaction between the manufacturer and the customer, even though it is always a result of a deal negotiated, signed and financially transacted between the customer and the dealer.
'Flat-out tax grab'
"It's outrageous," says Aaron Wudrick of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. "A flat-out tax grab. Tax is supposed to be calculated on the price paid, not on some artificial figure determined by the government."
Last year, Canadian auto dealers moved 1.6 million new vehicles and more than three million used vehicles.
"It's classic stealth taxation," he says. "To the consumer, there is no difference between dealing with the dealer and dealing with the manufacturer."
Fairness beside the point
Huw Williams, spokesman for the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, says emphatically and for the record that his members wish they were not forced to collect so much tax.
But, he says, "the government has decided that when there is a rebate that reduces the price to the consumer, the consumer has to pay tax on the original price anyway."
Whether that is fair or not is beside the point, Williams says. It is the reality imposed on dealers.
"We are one of the most audited businesses in the country," he says. "Dealers get audited all the time, and if the government decides you're applying tax to the 'wrong' amount, then the dealers are on the hook for it."
I think here in the US you pay tax on the rebate. Maybe it is dependent on what state you live in. You buy a $40,000 car for $36K, then there is a separate $2K rebate on top of that. You pay sales tax on $34K, then sales tax on the $2K.
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2025 Camry SE AWD
I think here in the US you pay tax on the rebate. Maybe it is dependent on what state you live in. You buy a $40,000 car for $36K, then there is a separate $2K rebate on top of that. You pay sales tax on $34K, then sales tax on the $2K.
I think that would be almost the same idea. Why should you pay tax on money you didn't really spend?
If you buy dish detergent and it costs $5, and you have a $1 coupon, do you pay tax on $5 or $4?
No wonder people cheat on their taxes, it is like us against them, only they hold all the cards.
How long do you think it will be before things like a TAX GRAB start happening in the US? We have a 20 trillion dollar debt that costs billions every day to pay the interest on that debt. Add to that proposed increases in sales, gasoline, inheritance, value added, etc., taxes after this presidential election to pay for free college, a bailout of student loan debt, bailout of Puerto Rico, health care for all under a single payer, to name a few, and we wind up with a chaotic situation - no matter what political party takes control of all three branches of government.
Some states consider a rebate "income". It's not a price adjustment from the dealer but free money from the manufacturer.
"When it comes to cash-back rebates, many car buyers are surprised to learn that most states do tax them. This seems unfair, but most states view cash rebates as a form of payment from the manufacturer and conclude that it does not affect the purchase price of the car." There's a list of states that don't tax rebates at this realcartips.com link.
The feds don't agree with the states and don't consider rebates to be taxable income. (IRS)
Yeah, not buying any of the arguments to use anything but the sales price for computing the sales tax. CA taxes phones on the full retail amount, even if you get them for free or for a penny.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Some states consider a rebate "income". It's not a price adjustment from the dealer but free money from the manufacturer.
"When it comes to cash-back rebates, many car buyers are surprised to learn that most states do tax them. This seems unfair, but most states view cash rebates as a form of payment from the manufacturer and conclude that it does not affect the purchase price of the car." There's a list of states that don't tax rebates at this realcartips.com link.
The feds don't agree with the states and don't consider rebates to be taxable income. (IRS)
Why don't the car manufacturers just say.........here is our $40,000 MSRP car, but for you we are going to discount it by $4000. Don't do it as a rebate. Even put it on the window sticker, a $40000 value, now selling for $36000, or can you just say for this week only get 10% off when you buy a new Acmemobile?. Do people really like the sound of "rebate" that much more?
Some states consider a rebate "income". It's not a price adjustment from the dealer but free money from the manufacturer.
"When it comes to cash-back rebates, many car buyers are surprised to learn that most states do tax them. This seems unfair, but most states view cash rebates as a form of payment from the manufacturer and conclude that it does not affect the purchase price of the car." There's a list of states that don't tax rebates at this realcartips.com link.
The feds don't agree with the states and don't consider rebates to be taxable income. (IRS)
In that case I wonder if the Feds allow the manufacturers to deduct the rebates as a cost of doing business? Or how about if a person qualifies for a lower interest rate than others. Is the difference income?
As I understand it, in Florida if a dealer gives a discount then the tax does not apply. If the rebate is from the manufacturer, then the sales tax applied. It applies to a sale of a car and can of Campbell's soup. Cashback rebate is treated same way as a manufacturer's coupon, which has big disclaimer that all taxes are paid on the retailer's price. Now, there are games played. I've seen ads in the past, where at the advertised price all rebates are "assigned" to a dealer, in which case the tax is (I think) paid on the discounted price. But I don't know how that actually works.
Some states consider a rebate "income". It's not a price adjustment from the dealer but free money from the manufacturer.
"When it comes to cash-back rebates, many car buyers are surprised to learn that most states do tax them. This seems unfair, but most states view cash rebates as a form of payment from the manufacturer and conclude that it does not affect the purchase price of the car." There's a list of states that don't tax rebates at this realcartips.com link.
The feds don't agree with the states and don't consider rebates to be taxable income. (IRS)
Why don't the car manufacturers just say.........here is our $40,000 MSRP car, but for you we are going to discount it by $4000. Don't do it as a rebate. Even put it on the window sticker, a $40000 value, now selling for $36000, or can you just say for this week only get 10% off when you buy a new Acmemobile?. Do people really like the sound of "rebate" that much more?
Beats me, I haven't done retail for ~40 years. Probably too many other consequences that are avoided by calling the price reduction a rebate. And usually the fine print says that dealer participation may vary, so there's that.
Some states consider a rebate "income". It's not a price adjustment from the dealer but free money from the manufacturer.
"When it comes to cash-back rebates, many car buyers are surprised to learn that most states do tax them. This seems unfair, but most states view cash rebates as a form of payment from the manufacturer and conclude that it does not affect the purchase price of the car." There's a list of states that don't tax rebates at this realcartips.com link.
The feds don't agree with the states and don't consider rebates to be taxable income. (IRS)
Why don't the car manufacturers just say.........here is our $40,000 MSRP car, but for you we are going to discount it by $4000. Don't do it as a rebate. Even put it on the window sticker, a $40000 value, now selling for $36000, or can you just say for this week only get 10% off when you buy a new Acmemobile?. Do people really like the sound of "rebate" that much more?
Because of a "prestige" of a brand and transitory nature of a rebate (it can be pulled at any time, or it may be applied to a select group of customers). You've never seen "$X value" claims in ads for all kinds of items, knowing actual value is often less than half?
Yeah, not buying any of the arguments to use anything but the sales price for computing the sales tax. CA taxes phones on the full retail amount, even if you get them for free or for a penny.
This is still nothing compared to some European countries demanding VAT be paid on free service performed as a community outreach, e.g. pro-bono lawyers advice should ring the register and pay VAT on face value of that hour they gave to a battered woman seeking protection advice against her abusive husband. Or, actually, the woman should, according to tax officials. That's really twisted, isn't it?
In most everyday purchases, when you have a rebate or coupon, when your purchase is rung up they add the tax to the gross amount and then subtract the rebate. So you are being routinely taxed on money you don't spend.
Why don't the car manufacturers just say.........here is our $40,000 MSRP car, but for you we are going to discount it by $4000. Don't do it as a rebate. Even put it on the window sticker, a $40000 value, now selling for $36000, or can you just say for this week only get 10% off when you buy a new Acmemobile?. Do people really like the sound of "rebate" that much more?
I asked the same question and was told it is because some buyers will take the cheque instead. Why I do not know.
This is still nothing compared to some European countries demanding VAT be paid on free service performed as a community outreach, e.g. pro-bono lawyers advice should ring the register and pay VAT on face value of that hour they gave to a battered woman seeking protection advice against her abusive husband. Or, actually, the woman should, according to tax officials. That's really twisted, isn't it?
That's Euroland for you. A cautionary tale for sure.
If you buy dish detergent and it costs $5, and you have a $1 coupon, do you pay tax on $5 or $4? No wonder people cheat on their taxes, it is like us against them, only they hold all the cards.
Not disputing the fact that taxing money that actually did not exchange hands is unjust, "us versus them" is a bit more complicated. Everybody declares they just want to be "left alone" and the government should "stop wasting" money. One the same token, everybody expects their part of government benefit will be delivered on time, in high quality and of course completely "free of charge", because they "already paid" for it. As a bonus, they also want to be able to tell their neighbors how to raise or feed their children (including government enforcement), how tall should their grass be and what is acceptable color for their window frames. In other words - as a nation, we are bunch of hypocrites. We want the stuff, we want others to pay for it, we constantly think we paid too much and even in face of simple math, we all deny its existence. Just a few examples:
1. Has anybody read their Medicare (and Social Security) statement, looked how much money they actually paid in last 10-20 years (or lifetime) and compared it to cost of some common medical procedures performed on old folks? I'm sure, they didn't, otherwise nobody would say with a straight face "I paid my dues on that". I did and the comparisons are simply laughable - even if we consider bunch of "unclaimed" money from the folks who died before it was their turn, the money simply doesn't add up - in fact it's not even close. BTW, I've been in over median annual income for at least last 10 years and I think the total Medicare money I paid since I started in 2001 is a joke vs. what a senior expects to be delivered to them. Even adding another 20 years of contributions on top at levels now close to Social Security maximum, it will pay for couple of things maybe. 2. Has anybody really made a math on new improved gas mileage on their vehicles vs. say 10 or 20 years ago and thought of an impact that has on the Federal Transportation Trust? Take all those hybrids, now electric cars, and simple midsize sedans that went from low 20s to high 20s or low 30s, adjust for growth in population, infrastructure deterioration, etc. - can anybody with a straight face say nothing needs to be done into that funding scheme? Of course not.
I could go on and on, item by item. We all want to believe we paid "our share" and now it's time for somebody else to pick up the rest of the growing tab. It's always "them" - the rich, or the welfare mooches, never me.
Rebate sounds like you're getting something for free, and a lot of people are only interested in "free stuff" nowadays. I love getting phone calls about "free" vacations or cruises. They usually end after I ask how much FREE is going to cost me
Comments
My dealer said he would call me as soon as a loaded up one arrives next month with all the new technology. I'll drive it onto the Turnpike to see if it has enough spunk to merge nicely with traffic. BTW, they increased the starting price of the E300 by about $1000 - and that's with going from a 302 hp V6 to a 241 hp 4. So they are pricing the car heavily. A fairly nicely equipped E300 will MSRP for over $60,000 and a loaded up one for over $67,000. That's a lot of money for an E Class with a 4 cylinder engine, IMHO!
2024 Genesis G90 Super-Charger
The 2.0 Benz uses produces little sound. It seems likethe motor is working, but it's far away.
The 2.0 in the BMW emits a bit more sound than the others I've driven. Not bad sound, but a bit more racous.
The 2.0 in the GTI (not sure if it's the same one used in the A6) sounds like a mechanical party.
In all of them, torque is strong and power is linear. In the CTS, you'd be hard pressed to note any lag.
Maybe the local VW dealer we're talking to is the exception to the rule, but so far are very easy to work with and seem to want to make a deal. We'll find out tomorrow if that's true or not as they're trying toget exactly what my son wants, regardless of how rare it is in the market.
Some NMA members recently got a Philadelphia Traffic Engineer (PE) to admit the reason they added lots of wide bike lanes wasn't due to the number of bicyclists, but to slow people down with purposely poor traffic engineering.
I'm with the NMA on this issue, bicyclists should thank motorists for the roads and bike lanes the car and fuel taxes pay for. In other words, bicyclists are leeches on the roadways they don't pay for.
You wouldn't have a link to that would you? If true that would be a shocking admission.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
As to the VW, most likely it is like the diesel stick wagon holy grail. Rare item, but very few actual buyers!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It doesn't bother me at all, so I just leave it.
Oldfarmer, do you want links to the red light cameras or the bike lanes? If it is red light cameras just google, red light cameras, do they work or similar questions. There is no real proof they make a positive difference, in some cases number of accidents actually increase (many times from drivers stopping too fast). Some surveys say rear end accident rates may increase, but the red light cameras prevent more T-bone accidents, which are more serious. However, the experts believe the better way to prevent accidents is to make a longer amber light, and to have red showing in both directions for 2 seconds.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
it does seem silly to me to waste money on that feature, instead of something useful!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
My dealer said he would call me as soon as a loaded up one arrives next month with all the new technology. I'll drive it onto the Turnpike to see if it has enough spunk to merge nicely with traffic. BTW, they increased the starting price of the E300 by about $1000 - and that's with going from a 302 hp V6 to a 241 hp 4. So they are pricing the car heavily. A fairly nicely equipped E300 will MSRP for over $60,000 and a loaded up one for over $67,000. That's a lot of money for an E Class with a 4 cylinder engine, IMHO!
It is just a pet peeve of mine, but I don't like the way some of the 4 cyl turbo's run the cooling fan after you turn the engine off. I suppose it is to cool down the turbo.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
No, I want to see in black and white that a government official admitted to deliberately designing a road hazzard.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Farmer, I don't think you will ever see that, but there is some controversy. It has been found that in some cities, Chicago to name one, the yellow light is shorter than recommended where red light cameras are used. To me, this seems like a blatant money grab.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
https://www.motorists.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Winter-2016-Driving-Freedoms.pdf
Look at Page 8, but you should probably read the completely unedited correspondence starting earlier.
It's all part of this backwards "vision zero" sinister anti-automobile philosophy. They do the same things with "traffic calming" devices like narrower lanes, obstructions, barricades, speed bumps, and other obstacles. Instead of reducing traffic by making it flow better, they make it flow worse, which is supposed to deter people from driving all together.
My dealer said he would call me as soon as a loaded up one arrives next month with all the new technology. I'll drive it onto the Turnpike to see if it has enough spunk to merge nicely with traffic. BTW, they increased the starting price of the E300 by about $1000 - and that's with going from a 302 hp V6 to a 241 hp 4. So they are pricing the car heavily. A fairly nicely equipped E300 will MSRP for over $60,000 and a loaded up one for over $67,000. That's a lot of money for an E Class with a 4 cylinder engine, IMHO!
It is just a pet peeve of mine, but I don't like the way some of the 4 cyl turbo's run the cooling fan after you turn the engine off. I suppose it is to cool down the turbo.
In my Audi's, I've only noticed the fan staying on after the engine was off when I just climbed Palomar mountain in a spirited fashion. I've noticed the VW diesel engine likes the fan to stay on more regularly too.
Wish I was there again!
2024 Genesis G90 Super-Charger
2024 Genesis G90 Super-Charger
Aba, I'm not sold on turbo's yet, mostly because I want to see some durability experience on them given the heat they can throw off. I ended up with a turbo on a Mustang convertible a few months ago and have to say it drove better than I expected without any real noticeable turbo lag. I am also curious about Ford truck owner experience towing with them instead of a V8.
Red light cameras are controversial in Tampa now...some want to get rid of the red light cameras. Seems Tampa installed RLCs, and then shortened the amber light time in some intersections. The revenue stream has been terrific, but, there is no proof they cut down on accidents. I am sure you can google it.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Let's say, for example, that the price of a new minivan is $35,000, plus $900 in add-on equipment like a roof rack or bumper hitch, and the manufacturer is offering a "rebate" or "cash bonus" of $4,000.
The government obliges the dealer to add $35,000 to $900, for a subtotal of $35,900, then immediately apply the harmonized federal-provincial sales tax, which in Ontario is 13 per cent, or $4,667, for a total of $40,567. The dealer is then told to apply the $4,000 advertised price break to that fully taxed total, meaning the customer pays $36,567.
If, however, the customer was taxed on what he or she actually paid, it would be a different story.
The sales tax would be applied on the real price — $35,900 minus the $4,000 "rebate" — or $31,900. Calculated that way, the tax would be $4,147, and the bottom line $36,047 - a difference of $520.
The dealer doesn't make an extra cent because of the government-imposed calculation. The entire $520 extra goes to the government in taxes.
And the buyer effectively winds up paying tax on $4,000 he or she didn't really spend at all.
Even though the CRA (Canada Revenue) respectfully declines to discuss the subject, its rationale is a matter of public record.
The government takes the view that the rebate, or cash bonus, or whatever gimmicky name it's called, is a completely separate transaction between the manufacturer and the customer, even though it is always a result of a deal negotiated, signed and financially transacted between the customer and the dealer.
'Flat-out tax grab'
"It's outrageous," says Aaron Wudrick of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. "A flat-out tax grab. Tax is supposed to be calculated on the price paid, not on some artificial figure determined by the government."
Last year, Canadian auto dealers moved 1.6 million new vehicles and more than three million used vehicles.
"It's classic stealth taxation," he says. "To the consumer, there is no difference between dealing with the dealer and dealing with the manufacturer."
Fairness beside the point
Huw Williams, spokesman for the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, says emphatically and for the record that his members wish they were not forced to collect so much tax.
But, he says, "the government has decided that when there is a rebate that reduces the price to the consumer, the consumer has to pay tax on the original price anyway."
Whether that is fair or not is beside the point, Williams says. It is the reality imposed on dealers.
"We are one of the most audited businesses in the country," he says. "Dealers get audited all the time, and if the government decides you're applying tax to the 'wrong' amount, then the dealers are on the hook for it."
TAX GRAB
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2025 Camry SE AWD
http://www.motortrend.com/news/12-year-old-takes-school-bus-joyride-wvideo/?_wcsid=02ECE72CE01AC7191928FC6AA9692666C642981F76BF3D97
If you buy dish detergent and it costs $5, and you have a $1 coupon, do you pay tax on $5 or $4?
No wonder people cheat on their taxes, it is like us against them, only they hold all the cards.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
TAX GRAB
How long do you think it will be before things like a TAX GRAB start happening in the US? We have a 20 trillion dollar debt that costs billions every day to pay the interest on that debt. Add to that proposed increases in sales, gasoline, inheritance, value added, etc., taxes after this presidential election to pay for free college, a bailout of student loan debt, bailout of Puerto Rico, health care for all under a single payer, to name a few, and we wind up with a chaotic situation - no matter what political party takes control of all three branches of government.
2024 Genesis G90 Super-Charger
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
"When it comes to cash-back rebates, many car buyers are surprised to learn that most states do tax them.
This seems unfair, but most states view cash rebates as a form of payment from the manufacturer and conclude that it does not affect the purchase price of the car." There's a list of states that don't tax rebates at this realcartips.com link.
The feds don't agree with the states and don't consider rebates to be taxable income. (IRS)
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
2018 430i Gran Coupe
2018 430i Gran Coupe
2018 430i Gran Coupe
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I asked the same question and was told it is because some buyers will take the cheque instead. Why I do not know.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
1. Has anybody read their Medicare (and Social Security) statement, looked how much money they actually paid in last 10-20 years (or lifetime) and compared it to cost of some common medical procedures performed on old folks? I'm sure, they didn't, otherwise nobody would say with a straight face "I paid my dues on that". I did and the comparisons are simply laughable - even if we consider bunch of "unclaimed" money from the folks who died before it was their turn, the money simply doesn't add up - in fact it's not even close. BTW, I've been in over median annual income for at least last 10 years and I think the total Medicare money I paid since I started in 2001 is a joke vs. what a senior expects to be delivered to them. Even adding another 20 years of contributions on top at levels now close to Social Security maximum, it will pay for couple of things maybe.
2. Has anybody really made a math on new improved gas mileage on their vehicles vs. say 10 or 20 years ago and thought of an impact that has on the Federal Transportation Trust? Take all those hybrids, now electric cars, and simple midsize sedans that went from low 20s to high 20s or low 30s, adjust for growth in population, infrastructure deterioration, etc. - can anybody with a straight face say nothing needs to be done into that funding scheme? Of course not.
I could go on and on, item by item. We all want to believe we paid "our share" and now it's time for somebody else to pick up the rest of the growing tab. It's always "them" - the rich, or the welfare mooches, never me.
OK, rant over. Now - dish it out.
2018 430i Gran Coupe