Will the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) Affect You Car Purchase

Clickbait on 18/05/2025 - 19:27

This may look complicated but my guess is that the government is about to crash the Australian Auto market. So read it carefully and comment away.

These are average Carbon Dioxide, CO₂, g/km emissions for some popular Australian LCVs:
Toyota HiLux: Approximately 200–250 g/km
Ford Ranger: Approximately 190–240 g/km
Isuzu D-MAX: Approximately 190–230 g/km
Mitsubishi Triton: Approximately 180–220 g/km

Our New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) mandate these max g/km emissions
Year Target CO₂ Emissions (g/km)
2025 210
2026 180
2027 150
2028 122
2029 110
The proposed penalty is $100 per gram of CO₂ per kilometer (g/km) for sales over the fleet target.
So, from July, if you buy a top rated Hilux, the penalty will be (250-210=40)
40 grams over * $100 per gram = $4000.
But don't panic. The importers can offset the excess by purchasing carbon credits from of Chinese Importers selling cheap EV crap.
Note that the penalty will probably not apply to makes that people don't want.
So swap your Prado for an MG Fluffy, or else.
It looks like the used car market is about to boom boom boom again

Automotive

Comments

  • Wiadro on 18/05/2025 - 19:33
    +14

    theres ZERO new cars which interest me

    • tdw on 18/05/2025 - 20:39
      +7

      or that i can afford

  • Protractor on 18/05/2025 - 19:35
    +12

    More anti ALP flaming dressed in clear plastic. Do you get free Lib membership?

  • shxhshzhz on 18/05/2025 - 19:36
    +3

    Any deals on the MG Fluffy?

    • jizmo on 18/05/2025 - 19:53
      +1

      Why Do I think of a Clown selling hamburgers every time I read MG-Fluffy?

    • JIMB0 on 18/05/2025 - 21:08

      They all stink.

    • Seaword on 18/05/2025 - 19:52
      +4

      I have a 4l I6, thirsty as f these engines. Time for them to go the way of the dinosaur.

    • MS Paint on 18/05/2025 - 19:58

      So old Hilux or Prado or did something else have this engine?

      • spackbace on 18/05/2025 - 20:54
        +1

        FJ?

        • MS Paint on 18/05/2025 - 20:55

          Google says you are right. Not that I doubted you.

      • Hybroid on 18/05/2025 - 22:00
        +1

        The 1GR-FE is sublime and rock solid. It's been in multiple vehicles here and abroad including Prado, FJ Cruiser, 4Runner, Hilux, Fortuner, Tacoma, Tundra and Land Cruisers.

  • p1 ama on 18/05/2025 - 19:48
    +29

    The proposed penalty is $100 per gram of CO₂ per kilometer (g/km) for sales over the fleet target. So, from July, if you buy a top rated Hilux, the penalty will be (250-210=40)

    Did you even bother to read the policy, or just spewing garbage to incite the morons?

    This is not how the policy works. Read: http://infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure-transport-vehicl…

    Notably:

    The Standard works by setting an average CO2 target for all new covered vehicles. Car suppliers, must meet or beat the CO2 target by supplying more fuel-efficient, low or zero emission vehicles, or cover the shortfall in the following two years by selling more efficient vehicles that are below the CO2 target, and/or by purchasing units to offset their emissions values. Over time, the CO2 target is lowered to become more stringent.

    In other words, for Toyota, their more efficient vehicles (e.g. Hybrid models, smaller cars…etc.) will offset against their less efficient vehicles (e.g. a Hilux), and overall, they will need to meet the emissions threshold.

    As a whole fleet, Toyota's average emissions are 97g/km (see: https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/lowest-and-hig…), which means that the so-called penalty that would apply to those purchasing a Hilux would be $0.00.

    Go take a hike and yell into the woods.

    • jizmo on 18/05/2025 - 19:58
      -1

      So Isuzu are pulling the pin on Australia because they have nothing small to offset? I heard on the radio they where leaving about a year ago because they can't meet the target.

      • Clickbait on 18/05/2025 - 20:19
        -7

        Could be. But I put this up so the experts could respond

      • Euphemistic on 18/05/2025 - 22:17
        +2

        Isuzi are alreqdy offering smaller engines and also an EV ute is on the way.

    • Protractor on 18/05/2025 - 20:35
      +3

      spewing garbage to incite the morons

      You got it> OP is a specialist.
      Rebel without a cl…

  • AndyC1 on 18/05/2025 - 19:49
    +1

    What is the comparison to Europe and Cal standards as these are what we should be striving for a the car companies already meet them.

    • Clickbait on 18/05/2025 - 20:18
      -8

      Can you look it up for me?

      • Hardlyworkin on 19/05/2025 - 07:39
        +9

        OP is unable to present any balanced information. His name prevents it.

      • AndyC1 on 19/05/2025 - 19:22

        Looks like op is only capably of posting stuff that is a cut paste from some site as OP cannot use google.

  • boomramada on 18/05/2025 - 20:00

    So AMG C63 is like 192, so by the time when i get to have one in 2029, i probably have to pay tax for 82g?, about $8k? That be walking in the park, so I be fine with that. Or by then some other government comes and kill the mandate.

    • Clickbait on 18/05/2025 - 20:17
      -1

      Sorry I can't answer that. Just asking the question
      Now I can. These are the rates for smaller cars
      Year Type 1 (g CO₂/km)
      2025 141
      2026 117
      2027 92
      2028 68
      Does yours still shape up.

    • CheapandUsed on 18/05/2025 - 20:59
      +1

      I think the increasing popularity of Mercs EV models have given them confidence to bring back the V8 and to still meet the average emissions rules even in the EU.

      https://www.carscoops.com/2025/05/amg-v8s-arent-going-anywhe…

      A flat plane crank V8 with mild hybrid is going to be an absolute monster with what they can wring out of their turbo 4s these days.

      • boomramada on 18/05/2025 - 21:13

        Only issue is price tag, probably closer to $200k 🤣

        • LFO on 19/05/2025 - 18:23

          Per tyre …

    • ATTS on 20/05/2025 - 17:12

      Is it just once of payment?

  • mskeggs on 18/05/2025 - 20:12
    +8

    Why would buyers care about an extra cost if they are already insensitive to the extra fuel costs of these vehicles?
    Manufacturers can improve their fleet average like they have in Europe to minimise extra costs.

  • 30year old Camry on 18/05/2025 - 20:13
    +5

    I will just keep my 30 year old Camry

    • coxjon on 18/05/2025 - 20:20
      +4

      Username checks out

      • DashCam AKA Rolts on 18/05/2025 - 21:02
        +3

        As does O.P.'s.

        • Protractor on 18/05/2025 - 22:24
          +2

          Given the histoical record,thus far,OPs username is complimentary.

    • PinzVidz on 18/05/2025 - 22:49

      I will just keep my 30 year old Camry

      Oohh widebody. Nice.

  • Gdsamp on 18/05/2025 - 20:54

    No

  • Euphemistic on 18/05/2025 - 22:22
    +13

    We had been left behind with less effecient vehicles because the car companies prioritised new tech for other markets with efficiency standards amd ledt us with older inefficoent designs. Notice how many hybrids are in the market now that werent here before these standards were announced?

    Bring it on. Efficiency standards are good for inproving the fuel efficency of ALL new cars. Youll still be able to buy big powerful cars, they might cost a bit more, but they'll also be more efficienct than they would otherwise have been

  • SetTheFaqUp on 18/05/2025 - 22:46

    o well. tax deductible anyway. so impact is less obvious.

  • DingoBilly on 19/05/2025 - 00:04
    +8

    They're a bit weak if anything. Emission standards should be tighter to reverse this awful trend of big cars in Aus and to help combat climate change. Australia is really behind.

    Should be more like Japan with their economical cars than the atrocities you've mentioned.

    • Thinkscape on 19/05/2025 - 08:31
      +1

      Yep, weak as piss, with lobbyists successfully forcing exclusions for the light trucks 🤦‍♂️

  • smartazz104 on 19/05/2025 - 08:40

    This may look complicated but my guess is that the government is about to crash the Australian Auto market.

    Oh no people might buy less imported cars, what a shame.

  • netjock on 19/05/2025 - 10:57

    The proposed penalty is $100 per gram of CO₂ per kilometer (g/km) for sales over the fleet target.

    There is the problem. Corolla hybrids are going to share some of the pain of ute drivers.

    Get a used cop the charge. Used car market might boom in the short term but it won't forever because there is always people who want a flashy car.

  • Clickbait on 19/05/2025 - 11:22
    -3

    I think the point of my thread is misdirected.
    Sure, it can be politically charged but all I am saying is that anyone looking at buying one of the most populer cars in the country, the Big Utes and SUVs, should do their homework NOW.

    EV's, already heavily subsidised, make up about 10% of the market.
    One might be entitled to think that is a reflection of demand, but what addled brain thinks pricing one car out of the market, will force people to buy something they don't want.

    • Protractor on 19/05/2025 - 11:32
      +3

      I agree your point is misdirected. Glad we agree

      Since when isn't one of your posts politically charged or filled with agenda?

      "One" would end up buying whichever vehicle they want, but "one" would pay more. C'est la vie.

    • AndyC1 on 19/05/2025 - 19:24

      Your post is one sided and as such your post is not misdirected as a one sided post can only go one way with regards to how it is interpreted.

      • Clickbait on 19/05/2025 - 20:08

        A one sided post is an opinion. supported by enough evidence to encourage diverse, equitable and inclusive opinions.. which I love.
        I also enjoy pointless posts that support nothing more than Pride in ignorance, defended with confidence.

  • Piratarzt on 20/05/2025 - 09:57
    +2

    ..government is about to crash the Australian Auto market.

    laugh

    High emitters should be penalised. They are socialising the cost of their pollution.

    Big utes and SUVs are unnecessary for the vast majority of the population, and there isn't any evidence against that POV.

    • Clickbait on 20/05/2025 - 10:22
      -2

      I don't disagree with anything you say.
      But there is this thing called "Cognitive Dissonance", where you can hold conflicting views in complete blindness.
      Everyone supports Climate Change but also support things that don't support that narrative.
      Because they need huge SUV's and UTE's to save their children or suit their ego's.
      If these people can't buy what they want, they will not buy what they don't want.
      I am happy to debate my point, but please show me how equalisation will work.

      • Piratarzt on 21/05/2025 - 08:49

        Joe bloggs goes to woolies and looks at two different bottles of milk. One costs 5 dollars a litre and comes from a cow that lives the life of a king, with daily massages and netflix. The said cow has its name on the label, "Made with love by Milly the happy hefer", with a QR code to a webcam that shows Milly being happy. The other bottle costs 2.5 dollars a litre and comes from farm A. It also says that "99% of cows survived making this bottle of milk".

        Joe bloggs wants milk from Milly the happy hefer. But because it costs so much, Joe gets milk from farm A.

        The moral is that when people cannot buy what they want, they compromise. Some won't, but they aren't the majority. Same with houses, clothes, computers, phones, economy vs business flights, etc. If you do not know or understand that basic economic concept, you are not worth a debate.

        It also known that price pressures through taxation can and do change choices of a society, which in this case is the goal of reducing emissions. It doesn't work all the time, but it sure beats banning things outright. If you do not know or understand that basic economic concept, you are not worth a debate.

        • Clickbait on 21/05/2025 - 10:53

          I understand that choice is fundamental to economics, and you explain it quite well. Most importantly consumer choice in your example is generally based on their "satisfation", so things like, fat levels , A1, product sizes, brand, all define desirability and choices.
          But conflating it with Taxation, or other government interventions in market choice, is little more than coercion forced on the public.
          I don't believe a product has ever been marketed as "More Taxation for your good"
          No, and that is because it's not economics.
          It's totalitarianism
          I believe I am worth a debate, are you?

  • BobLim on 20/05/2025 - 20:52
    +3

    IMO extra charges should be related to mass (road damage) and size (general obnoxiousness, pedestrian safety, local amenity, occupting public space), rather than just emissions.

    It doesn't matter to me if your F150 has a battery and electric motor - I still can't see over or past the stupid thing, and it's still taking up 4 spots at the carpark.

  • Clickbait on 20/05/2025 - 21:22

    I will agree with you until I can afford one.
    But, for example, in a head on crash would you rather be in an ANCAP5 Corolla or and ANCAP5 Mazda9? Apparently, according to the bureaucrats they are almost the same

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join