Looked up what my P38 Range Rover would cost as having looked up price found it more than my Merc 230 SLK Kommpressor ( super charger) which is the least you can pay. Now discovered that in Aussie where the different rates came from there is rating for this model, before & after models there is and all at the lowest rating. Checked in the UK and found it was one of the safest cars on the road. In the Uk there is 50 different groups 1 being the lowest & 50 the highest, mine was 13. anyone else having this sort of problem.
budgel,
Jul 9, 11:10pm
Fair Go had a program about the incorrect classification of different vehicles. Get your info together and notify them. They asked for affected people to do this.
Several vehicles have been re-classified already by the authorities.
bjmh,
Jul 9, 11:11pm
watch fair go programme from last night,they have a link to ACC . apparently if you have a squeaky wheel acc will put some oil on it and they might lower the price. complain to ACC. Sorry budgel. u beat me to the draw
wayne13,
Jul 9, 11:51pm
I contacted Fair go but have never heard back. Not the first time either
tazzinem,
Jul 10, 5:47am
you don';t need to go to fair go. Try calling ACC first and ASK if your banding is correct. If it is, ask for the crash data
Just don't abuse the cr@p out of the person that answers the phone. they have nothing to do with the error
frank1,
Jul 10, 7:16am
Most of the idiots take their frustration out on the call takers anyway,before they got their info straight,or are they just plain thicko's.
mimik3,
Jul 10, 7:24am
There are no crash test results for the P38 Range Rover in ANCAP or EURO NCAP, only test results for the L322 Range Rover and that is only a 4 star, which is not the highest rating. The L322 was rated at 4 stars, and since the P38 was designed in 1996 they have assumed it to be a 3 star or less rating.
The assumptions made on any vehicle that does not have a definitive crash test result are based on a set of criteria which include some of the following data -Engine Compartment Design -Type of Steel used in Construction -Accident data from existing crashes
The P38 Range Rover was designed prior to 1996 and frontal impact standards had only just started being introduced in the mid 90's. The vehicle has a classification of adequate.
by_hdt,
Jul 11, 7:39am
I too was perplexed by these new ratings, My P38 is cheaper to register than all but one of my 10 cars (2012 Commodore), and the same as my 1996 E34 BMW. What took my interest was the BMW E34 and my 1997 VS commodore was that both are 1988 designs, the E34 has single airbag and the VS has 2, the E34 has an old Bosch ABS system, & the VS has a newer system. While I admit the VS has more body flex (plastic firewall etc) and is ultimately weaker than the E34, yet it is 2 safety categories worse off than the BMW? Does not compute.
What really made me annoyed was that the mrs' 2001 Toyota Platz, is according to the ratings more safe than the VS commodore, despite having no frontal structure to speak of, a laughable front subframe (only just big enough to stop the engine falling out) and being so flimsy that when you jack it up the body flexes so much that you cannot open the doors? Its a f****ng death trap but is safer? Im confused.
tamarillo,
Jul 11, 8:15am
Op, I'm confused by your arguement. Are you claiming it should get a better score and cheaper ACC? If so on what basis exactly. I'm surprised a truck released in early 90s isn't paying highest rate frankly! As said, 20 years ago it wasn't such an issue. What safety features does it have?
Mimik, it was released in 94 so designed started in late 80 s I assume.
claudek9,
Jul 14, 10:10pm
2006 suzuki swift in band 2, even tho its got 4 out 5 ancap for occupants, 5 out 5 for pedestrians.
wayne13,
Jul 14, 11:57pm
Looking again the Range Rover before 1995 is classified and at a better rating But not 1996 to 2002 then it is rated again for 2003 til present at a lower rate WHY ? Insurance is also cheaper and this is worked out on the accident and injuries etc and the injuries is how ACC comes up the the cost
franc123,
Jul 15, 7:53am
Get your submissions in folks, the ACC complaints hotline email is on the business page if you feel you have been 'misbanded', stating your make, model, year, exact model series and any other evidence you have that your car isn't the dangerous deathtrap its made out to be.
gunhand,
Jul 15, 8:10am
I wouldn't mind being the reader of all the emails from not so knowing (and some who think they know) car owners stating why their death trap isn't. Be a hoot.
franc123,
Jul 15, 8:21am
Those who are paying more than they have to due to the incompetence of a govt department aren't laughing. They've already backpedalled on some of the banding that was obviously inaccurate. The sort of nonsense described in post 10 is pretty common.
gunhand,
Jul 15, 8:25am
Absolutely, there are a few that make no sense at all and need adjusting, as they are doing. But there are many who have no clue about some things protesting on misguided reasoning as to the safety of their cars.
franc123,
Jul 15, 8:37am
I think everybody gets that the likes of a 1978 Corolla that's got only a collapsible column, dual circuit brakes with front discs and front seat belts as safety equipment isn't a good car to be in when in a crash, but grouping some mid late 90s cars that were designed with crumple zones, SRS, 4 wheel disc ABS, intrusion beams and the like in with vehicles 20 years older is clearly not right. OK they're not up with the state of the art 5 star ncap rated stuff of today but they cannot be expected to be.
humvee,
Jul 17, 7:31pm
Ive got a 1997(October to be exact) VT commodore and it is in the most expensive category. As it has been lumped in with all commodores since the 70's If I had a 1998 VT Commodore - Ie EXACTLY the same car just 3 months newer it would be in the cheaper. Its off 1st registered not manufacture date to - so there could be VT's that were made the same day as mine getting cheaper registration
franc123,
Jul 17, 10:18pm
Quite right, email them and explain, this new band structure is riddled with these discrepancies. vrr@acc.co.nz
nukhelenc,
Jul 17, 11:10pm
Anything to do with ACC is just a rip-off anyway, unless your a cereal accident partaker.
nukhelenc,
Jul 17, 11:19pm
Oh well looks like a 1992 Nissan safari y60 isn't going to do well.
jason_247,
Jul 18, 3:51am
our prices arent based only on safety ratings.
they are based on real world stats of how much that car has cost acc on average.
So if you car crashes badly like a cherry it will cost more.
If it crashes easily by falling over in corners like an explorer tthen it will cost more.
or if it cost them more by causing excessive injury to the other car like a range rover it will cost more.
And finally if luck caused the average owner of your car type to crash more often then it costs more.
All of these things go both ways but bottom line
everyone is saving money vs last year. and every car is WAAAAAAAY cheaper then registering in aussie or the UK
hamhonda,
Jul 18, 4:21am
Well I'm not sure to be happy or not, just registered my wifes XR8, it cost me less to register it for a year than it cost to fill the fuel tank up!
countrypete,
Jul 18, 5:11am
I had an accident with my cereal this morning. It went all over the floor.
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.