Reduced Rego Costs From July 1st!

[Mehrts]

Dunno where this should really go..

For those that may not be aware, the costs of relicencing your vehicles (paying rego) will drop by a decent amount from the 1st of July as the ACC levies are finally reduced.. This is great news! Just remember not to buy a 12 month or 6 month rego over the next couple of months so that you don't end up paying more than you have to..

Here's a link to a table that details how much you'll now have to pay for 12 months rego after July 1st.
http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_levies/documents/reference_tools/wpc137747.pdf

And a bit of an article explaining things in more detail:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/67714039/how-much-will-your-car-registration-cost-after-july-1

For example, going by their tables, my 1990 Diesel Hilux goes down from over $600 a year to $241.13.
My 2001 petrol Ford Mondeo drops right down to $103.46 from $431.25.

Seems too good to be true But I'm not complaining by any means

Have a gander for yourself and see where you guys are sitting with your rego costs.

[DefenderSte]

Thats good but its would be much better if the Km's came down in price too...........

[Swamped]

Pretty sure that is just the acc levy component so there will still be the licencing fee and gst plus whatever other stupid charges they can invent.
I think when the anouncement first came out average drops were like 40% which isn't bad.

Based on the age brackets on vehicles does the acc levy reflect their thoughts that older vehicles are more dangerous than newer ones?? $90 difference between old suzuki swifts and a new swift as an example.
I've not owned a car newer than a 93' so only just noticed the difference

[TJ]

Pretty sure that is just the acc levy component so there will still be the licencing fee and gst plus whatever other stupid charges they can invent.
I think when the anouncement first came out average drops were like 40% which isn't bad.

Based on the age brackets on vehicles does the acc levy reflect their thoughts that older vehicles are more dangerous than newer ones?? $90 difference between old suzuki swifts and a new swift as an example.
I've not owned a car newer than a 93' so only just noticed the difference

Its not that the older vehicles are more dangerous, its that the newer vehicles now have more safety features built in to them to keep the occupants safer. Many more air bags (including side curtain air bags) compared to the early single air bag. Steering and dashboard design and components contain more safety features. Plus the frame/unibody is advancing in design and safety everyday. Older vehicles were great for the technology and design advancement at the time, they are comparatively less safer now (but not necessarily any more dangerous all of a sudden).

[MihiT]

Its not that the older vehicles are more dangerous, its that the newer vehicles now have more safety features built in to them to keep the occupants safer. Many more air bags (including side curtain air bags) compared to the early single air bag. Steering and dashboard design and components contain more safety features. Plus the frame/unibody is advancing in design and safety everyday. Older vehicles were great for the technology and design advancement at the time, they are comparatively less safer now (but not necessarily any more dangerous all of a sudden).

It's mainly to do with the nut behind the wheel! given that 80% of fatal crashes still occur below the speed limit, "safety" (idiot-enabled) features and all, surely all it does is show that some people shouldn't be allowed on the road!

[mudsurfv6]

went to rego my 1996 surf today. was in levy band 1, according to ACC website a 96 surf should be levy band 2, but a 96 hilux is levy band 1. talked to ACC, they said on their records its a hilux, so should be in levy band 1. they told me to get hold of NZTA because its classified wrong, should be surf not hilux, on NZTA records the 'model' is hilux, 'sub-model' is surf. obviously ACC don't get the sub-model come through on their details, only the model.
so when you have to rego your vehicle make sure you that you are paying the right levy band rate.

[mudtroll]

I've got a 2002 100 series Landcruiser wife has a 1999 model, same car, same safety features, even have an email from Toyota to confirm, 2002 levy band 3, 1999 band 1. I have argued with ACC twice over this but they just keep quoting they're statistics at me and won't change it.

[Colinl]

Regos down but RUCs up to $70 per 1000km the house always win

[mudlva]

I've got a 2002 100 series Landcruiser wife has a 1999 model, same car, same safety features, even have an email from Toyota to confirm, 2002 levy band 3, 1999 band 1. I have argued with ACC twice over this but they just keep quoting they're statistics at me and won't change it.

I think you need nzta to make the changes then acc will not have an arguement to work with

[TJ]

I've got a 2002 100 series Landcruiser wife has a 1999 model, same car, same safety features, even have an email from Toyota to confirm, 2002 levy band 3, 1999 band 1. I have argued with ACC twice over this but they just keep quoting they're statistics at me and won't change it.

I think you need nzta to make the changes then acc will not have an arguement to work with

You can't get NZTA to change model year.

I have a similar issue where ACC is using two bands for 2007+ Wranglers. Factory designation JK, for safety hardware items they are all alike. In fact, 2012+ have better ESC logic and roll-protection logic. Therefore, meant to be comparatively safer.

However, ACC classes 2007-2011 as a higher band versus 2012+ years. This is counter intuitive, suggesting newer models are less safe. I have argued with them. Last conversation, the lady said yes what you are saying is logical and makes sense but we are not going to change anything.

As I understand the process, because my complaint has been rejected. I have to complete form ACC33VRR from their website and submit to force an independent assessment of my claim.

Main reason for difference in newer Jeep being lower in ratings is that in 2012 Wrangler was ENCAP tested and awarded a star rating. 2007-2011 were never tested, hence actual crash data is used which shows it performed better in real life crashes than ENCAP crash tests. Duhhhhhh, ACC said yup. Agree, but not going to do anything about it till enough 2012 have had crashes to force a change.

BTW, you can only ask for independent review within 3 months of rego being due.

[Crash bandicoot]

yup my 98 mistral (european crash test specs) gets a 5 star crash rating even though it's based on 1980's chassi tech and early 90's body design, has no air bags(optional), and yet new trucks are only getting 3.5 or 4 star ratings or in the case of a great wall a 2.

why? basically because they dont build them like they used too and having a bridge girder for a chassi pretty much means E=mc2 where the newer crumple zoned airbaged ford hilux cherokee isuzu ranger dmax sheep shaggin bling mobile wagon is going to be toast up against a 2.2 tonne mistral/terrano/ or a 2.5 tonne patrol/safari....

go figure

[dvk-kp]

I'm not sure how they've work it all out, but my 1990 Toyota Cressida, (lowered, Lexus v8 etc etc) and they decided it's one of the safest cars on the road and gave me the cheapest rego. Stoked for me

[Crash bandicoot]

I'm not sure how they've work it all out, but my 1990 Toyota Cressida, (lowered, Lexus v8 etc etc) and they decided it's one of the safest cars on the road and gave me the cheapest rego. Stoked for me

nice cars to drive those, me sister has a same era one but badged a cresta, 2jzgte powered too.

[dvk-kp]

Oh very nice. Yep good cars, and different. Don't see them too often. 2jz also I perfect engine for them. Hope ya sister gets the same cheap rego!

On a side note, I feel like there should be more 2jz 4wds!