What did they do with trailers! Is it the same! That's scary if so!
robbief,
Jan 28, 7:05am
have a 90s ute done100.000k in its life and do 400k between wofs and camper use it for six months a year so still have to take them out for a wof same as before no change for me.
tgray,
Jan 28, 7:38am
Why do you say that, when there is no change whatsoever to the law re older vehicles!
wrong2,
Jan 28, 7:41am
has anyone figured out why they really needed the changes
the first change - no wof required for 3 years - thats lacking in commen sense
you can rack up a lot of abuse on a car in 3 years
wrong2,
Jan 28, 7:44am
the deep south has the oldest average age in NZ
so prehaps your views of "up north" need updating
wrong2,
Jan 28, 7:46am
if thats the case, why introduce checks every 6 months in the first place
its not done anywhereelse on planet earth that has cars
scoobeey,
Jan 28, 7:49am
And the time and money going for a wof. Just the govt excuse for xtra police enforcement as stated in the news. Bill has to try and balance the books somehow!
intrade,
Jan 28, 7:53am
well its 1 year and everyone who thinks he needs 6 month can go for a wof after 6 month no problem infact you can go for a new wof every week if you want. so its good news finally something that makes sense. I do wonder how long new cars get do they get 5 years no wof like in europe now also !
intrade,
Jan 28, 7:55am
the cops green and pink sricker cars since years that dont comply to wof standards. and people who think a wof is a service should frankly not own any thing that is used on public roads.
wrong2,
Jan 28, 8:00am
but the average joe isnt a mechanic, & they do need to be forced to get at least a yearly check
i dont see the logic in allowing brand new cars to go unchecked for 3 years
thats a long time & a lot of abuse can be given over that time
vjregal770,
Jan 28, 8:09am
I'm not so sure. Most of those are Jap imports which were first registered in NZ after 1/1/2000. Or is it 6 month WoFs for pre-2000 cars regardless of where they were first registered!
next-to-normal,
Jan 28, 8:14am
all the fines they will get from the poor, help reduce the payout of the beni right up there with taxes on smokes,i dont reg or warrent my car, just to prove that i cant afford too and im not doing crime to surpport my income. bet the people doing burgs make sure they are legal while doing crime i cant get credit to buy rego as i had fines for no rego and wof, also the diesel car rego is bull
2sheddies,
Jan 28, 8:22am
One thing I don't quite understand with these changes is, it sounds as if an imported 97 Cefiro or whatever, registered anytime after 1 Jan 2000,will be eligible for 1 check per year under the new rules. My Maxima, also a 97, but NZ new, therefore first registered in 97, needs 2 checks per year! So, same vehicle, same age, similar K's, but one needs twice as many inspections! Surely I must have something wrong here.
pauloc,
Jan 28, 8:26am
It means first registered anywhere in the world. A 1948 is still a 1948 a 1997 firstregistered here or in Japan first registeredis a 1997 motorcar
franc123,
Jan 28, 8:26am
Its a policy thats been borrowed from the UK,the logic comes from the fact that under 3yo vehicles are covered by warranty and in most cases are dealer serviced by the book, if they don't their warranty can be jeopardised.Rental cars are of course covered by the COF system.
franc123,
Jan 28, 8:31am
Nope its first registered anywhere before 2000. You are correct in that a particular model that was built/registered over that period will have some examples subject to 6mth and others 12, and that won't change with age like it does now.
patiki1,
Jan 28, 8:31am
I feel the same way.I hate getting a wof every 6 months,but its a good thing.
wrong2,
Jan 28, 8:32am
that makes sense
franc123,
Jan 28, 8:37am
Its a disincentive to operate an older car, by still walloping you with more frequent inspections. Even under the current rules I have customers who have said to me when their car has hit six years old and they've owned it for several years or even since brand new and their next WOF is only six months say to me, bugger this time for a new car.
2sheddies,
Jan 28, 8:42am
Thank you very much for that. Now it all makes sense. :)
meathead_timaru,
Jan 28, 9:17am
Yeah, because everywhere it's compulsory, it's cheaper. right! No.
meathead_timaru,
Jan 28, 9:21am
By that rationale six-monthly WoFs are "at the expense of road safety" compared to three-monthly WoFs. That makes the annual WoFs for vehicle under 6 years old "at the expense of road safety" too because tyres, brakes and steering components wear out at the same rate in the same conditions regardless of the vehicle's age. But you were happy with that simply because you're conditioned to that "normality". Time to start thinking a little more objectively.
meathead_timaru,
Jan 28, 9:23am
Then they're idiots. The depreciation on a newer car will completely overshadow the cost of repairs and extra WoFs on the older one.
meathead_timaru,
Jan 28, 9:38am
The term you're looking for is "hare brained". But it's not in lieu of anything and if you actually believed it was you'd be going for a WoF everytime before you drove the car. It's about reducing unnecessary overheads. The law of diminishing returns applies. Six-monthly WoFs for vehicles over 6 years is a diminishing return. Annual is frequently plenty. Baseless scaremongering of the sort performed by the MTA and you doesn't change that.
noswalg,
Jan 28, 9:50am
this could actually backfire and end up costing the masses more if testing outfits decide to up the price of a WOF check to cover their losses, will have to wait and see I guess. Both my vehicles are post 2000 so win-win for me
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.