When you find out your car isn't the model year you thought...

[KwS 2376]

Yes it would be registered as 2016 (date of first registration). But its still a 1972 car. Anyone who tried to sell it and advertised it as a 2016 would be a f**kwit.

Still gonna get boned by Trademe then, as itll use the rego to list it as a 2016 regardless

[Allanw 1051]

Suzuki Cappuccinos sat in storage for a bit, while the first batch of NZ new ones were sold here. They were 1993 cars, registered new in 1995. They were registered as 1993 cars. There were a few extras brought in in 1995 to fulfill sales, and they were registered as 1995 cars.

Our E39 was built November 2000. It's a facelift 2001 model year per BMW, first registered in january 2001. It's registered as a 2000, the year it was built, NOT the year it was first registered overseas.

My VW Beetle is a 1972 1200 "Basic" version. They were very expensive compared to more modern cars available at the time, and sat around. Mine was first registered in 1974, as a new car in NZ. It too, is registered as a 1972 model. As it should be.

Dads E30 we just sold, was built April 1990. It was first registered to BMW NZ, NZ new in April 1991. It is also registered as a 1990.

Any dealer who registers a car built in 2008, as a 2010 model should be up on some kind of fraud charge.

[M3AN 4015]

Its quite simple, it would be registered as a 2016 car, as thats the date of first registration. It has happened before, but im not going to bother wasting my time to find the info.

A fact is a fact whether you like it or agree with it or not.

<shakes head>

I think you know better. The first registration date is a benchmark sure. Is it the baseline benchmark? No. And you know this.

I suspect there's a lot of troll in this thread because the obvious is, well it's obvious.

[M3AN 4015]

<shakes head again>

[KwS 2376]

Yes, im a troll.

f**k this, believe what you want.

#tinfoilhatbrigade

[M3AN 4015]

Yes, im a troll.

f**k this, believe what you want.

#tinfoilhatbrigade

Well, will you acknowledge the age of the car is determined by calculating the current year minus the production date?

Or are you going to continue to insist the first registration date somehow influences the age of the car?

[KwS 2376]

im going to flip you the bird, and give up on this trainwreck of a thread.

One day you will understand. Maybe not. I no longer care.

[M3AN 4015]

im going to flip you the bird, and give up on this trainwreck of a thread.

One day you will understand. Maybe not. I no longer care.

Classy.

[kiwi535 538]

im going to flip you the bird, and give up on this trainwreck of a thread.

One day you will understand. Maybe not. I no longer care.

i can accepet that the date of first registration is an indication of the cars first use date ,but can you not also aknowledge that as far as the specification of the car it is the model year or production date that is important for the car in itself?

[_ethrty-Andy_ 2122]

My bosses Porsche 356 Speedster replica (off an early VW Beetle chassis) is registered as a 2012 or so Porsche (50-60 years)

My Lada 2104 Wagon i had many moons ago was a 1992 car even though it arrived in NZ or at least built in 1983 (9 years)

My E30 325i Cabby is a 1992 but built August 1990 (19 months)

My Ford Transit Custom i just brought is a 2013 but built November 2012 (5 months)

Let the buyer beware. Its kind of a legal term used to get around such situations.

Edited March 7, 2016 by _Ethrty-Andy_

[M3AN 4015]

...is registered as a 2012 ...

Is accurate.

...is a 1992 but built August 1990...

Is BS.

[_ethrty-Andy_ 2122]

Is accurate.

Is BS.

if you want to quote me thats fine, but please don't restructure my sentences

[M3AN 4015]

if you want to quote me thats fine, but please don't restructure my sentences

I didn't, that's what "..." is used for. I simply dropped the irrelevant parts.

Edit: no offence (or even disagreement) intended. If you don't understand I'm happy to elaborate - didn't think that was necessary.

Edited March 7, 2016 by M3AN

[Ahmedsinc 414]

Well, this turned into a clusterf**k quicker than I thought it would

I'm popping out for more popcorn, can someone save my seat please??

[Herbmiester 909]

What! isn't the BMW lost its soul thread entertaining enough for you? Its entertaining the hell out of me but this looks like a bit of fun as well.

[Ahmedsinc 414]

What! isn't the BMW lost its soul thread entertaining enough for you? Its entertaining the hell out of me but this looks like a bit of fun as well.

[E30 325i Rag-Top 2915]

Wow, so much wtf in one thread! There are actually laws and regulations that cover this stuff you know.. The sale of motor vehicles act or something, plus a couple of others. JFGI

And just for the record there were a couple of Mercs that sat in a warehouse in Singapore for nine years unregistered, then brought to NZ. Guess what they were sold as...

[Rubix 434]

And just for the record there were a couple of Mercs that sat in a warehouse in Singapore for nine years unregistered, then brought to NZ. Guess what they were sold as...

BMW's?

[_ethrty-Andy_ 2122]

Wow, so much wtf in one thread! There are actually laws and regulations that cover this stuff you know.. The sale of motor vehicles act or something, plus a couple of others. JFGI

And just for the record there were a couple of Mercs that sat in a warehouse in Singapore for nine years unregistered, then brought to NZ. Guess what they were sold as...

Ssangyongs?

[huff3r 347]

I was under the impression that if nzta found out the build date of a vehicle they would require it to be registered according to build date, not year first registered. I recall 5 or more years ago a similar argument to this on here, as someone had a car first registered as xxxx and built as a model year xxxx but at the end of yyyy and were forced to register it as a yyyy, even though it was built to the newer model specs.

Can't find anything to back it up, and while the nzta site is now easier to navigate, it has also now lost 90% of its useful content.

[M3AN 4015]

The seller only has to identify the year of first registration:

The vehicle year of the motor vehicle as recorded on the motor vehicle register. For motor vehicles registered before 1 January 2007, “vehicle year” means the year of manufacture or the model year or the year of first registration. For motor vehicles registered after 1 January 2007, “vehicle year” means the year of first registration anywhere in the world.

Source: http://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-12-consumer-protection/buying-a-motor-vehicle-chapter-12/

However that does not change the age of the vehicle. If there's a material difference between the date of first registration and the age of the car the seller is required (under various laws) to make that clear so as not to be "misleading". It's caveat emptor unless it's misleading (or false but that's not the case here). And a misleading headline cannot be corrected in the small print.

I think this whole episode makes a clear argument for asking a simple question when purchasing a car (unless you already know the answer)- "how old is the car?" - seller cannot lie when asked a direct question and if they say "I don't know" then you're probably best to walk away.

Edited March 8, 2016 by M3AN

[jin108 25]

Its possible the seller had no idea their car was a 2008 and not 2010. It was first registered in Japan not NZ. think the lesson here is to check when buying a car.

[Matth5 471]

Its possible the seller had no idea their car was a 2008 and not 2010. It was first registered in Japan not NZ. think the lesson here is to check when buying a car.

Yes but someone has told him and his response was simply "it's a 2010". And there's a bunch of unanswered questions on the action which I imagine he doesn't want to be shown.

One is from me telling him that the VIN on Carjam is from a 2008 build and asking him if the VIN is correct or if the car just has different plates in the photos (before I started this thread, I thought it could be an innocent mistake like that...)

Edited March 8, 2016 by Matth5

[jin108 25]

I notice theres something else listed incorrectly with the car

[Matth5 471]

I notice theres something else listed incorrectly with the car

Yea I see someone pointed out it has a bade sound system, not Harman Kardon, aka Karmon Haridin as he spelt it...

Despite the ad having some dodgy aspects it still seems like a decent buy, depending on condition.

It didn't sell though, looks like the 45k bid was not reserve and he's sent a fixed price offer of 54k.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Matth5