Govt import restrictions - value?

[Jazzbass 1]

It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, happens should the Govt succeed in this import restriction on cars older than 6 years. Is this likely to put BMWs out of the reach of Joe Average, since '99+ BMWs are significantly more expensive than the E36s etc that currently flood the market under $15k. Also, dealers will have more direct competition at the Japanese auctions (apparently there are about 100 countries which import these cars) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cf...jectid=10406086

What do you think - will it raise the market value of your car, since every 3rd car on the road will be Japanese rather than BMW?

Also, will it reduce the import of the 'motoring cancer' (SUVs) to any significance, since they state a goal of the changes would also be to ensure that imports met fuel consumption figures? Published figures suggest that SUVs (I know - generalisations) have a fuel economy which is only considered economical by those who blindly drive one. Everyone else thinks they are about as thirsty as as All Black front row when there's free beer flowing.

[Carl 3]

If it succeeds in raising the value of my car, it will also succeed in raising the value of other cars, and therefore cancel out any gains were I to sell up and buy another.

[Guest Andrew]

It will suceed in bringing crappier cars into the country. Dealers will wind more odos - bring in grade 1 crap and slap paint on them so they can still sell under 10k cheapies.

[cainchapman 0]

I find it hard to believe that prices can soar. Prices of those cars are already at a level. All it is to stop is the cheap crap landing here. So you won't be able to buy an $8k car. Who cares.

Andrew is right too, Car dealers are scum and will find a new way to screw people.

I am intrigued about the emission and economy testing though. How do they propose to do it, as it has been too hard to implement as part of the WOF, so will this become a compliance test? And who will do it.

On the fuel economy thing, I'm not fussed, as you see on this site, many people think that the V8's are not economical. I'd disagree entirely. If I want to drive a Dodge Viper, good on me. As long as it is meeting the emissions regs. I'm happy for freedom of choice.

[martyyn 2]

I honestly cant see how this is going to achieve what they want, which is cars with lower fuel economy (or is that higher fuel economy !).

In order to get rid of the 20 year old bangers you need to make newer/imported cars cheaper not more expensive.

You also need to have tougher warrant standards so they cant be on the road in the first place. As it is now, I see very little reason why 'most' NZ's cant have a fuel efficeint car already.

There are lots of places to get decent cheap cars but those people at the bottom of the heap would rather spend their money on birds, fags and booze than a half decent car.

Make cars more affordable and you will get newer and more efficient cars on the road.

Ill get off my soap box now, but this really winds me up.

Edited October 15, 2006 by martyyn

[kiwi535 538]

In order to get rid of the 20 year old bangers you need to make newer/imported cars cheaper not more expensive.

That will be a significant number of cars here,mines nearly 17 years old!

[cainchapman 0]

That will be a significant number of cars here,mines nearly 17 years old

That's my point exactly Paul. A well maintained classic (due to it's level of technology) can be efficient and better than a poorly maintained newer car. The amount of post 1995 Jap imports smoking their way around Auckland is phenomonal.

However, an emissions check at the border won't stop people neglecting them, once they own it.

It should be done as part of the WOF.

Edited October 16, 2006 by cainchapman

[martyyn 2]

That will be a significant number of cars here,mines nearly 17 years old!

I was only using 20 years old as thats what they said in the article.

I know that will cover alot of cars here, but I would expect that most older BMW's would have a decent fuel economy already.

As Cain said, if my car passes the emissions test I should be allowed to choose between my V8 and a 3 cylinder sewing machine

On the open road my car is as fuel efficient as the next car. Its only around town that I struggle !

I worked it out with a friend a few weeks ago. The difference in fuel consumption between my 4.4 v8 and his 2 litre Jap motor was 70 dollars a month more for me. Seeing as I sit in luxury everyday and he is forced to use a cloth to wipe his screen on a cold day I think thats a price Im willing to pay !!

[E30stz 0]

would this mean no importing classic cars over the age of 20 ? classic cars like that wont be road registerable?

Edited October 16, 2006 by E30stz

[petone 0]

I know that will cover alot of cars here, but I would expect that most older BMW's would have a decent fuel economy already.

Most older BMW's are actually pretty crappy on the gas, (E30's that is, 5's or 7's would have to be worse still) japa shopping trolleys are far better on petrol.

[martyyn 2]

Most older BMW's are actually pretty crappy on the gas, (E30's that is, 5's or 7's would have to be worse still) japa shopping trolleys are far better on petrol.

Having owned e28's and e32's I can say that a well maintained 5 or 7 is pretty good on petrol.

Thats Cain's point though isnt it....an old but well maintained car is going to be as good if not better than some Jap shopping trolley that just gets run into the ground.

Dont just jump to the conclusion that big is bad.

[Guest Andrew]

You should all be driving Suzuki Swifts if your worried about fuel economy and emissions.

[kiwi535 538]

actually the whole point is emmisions isnt it?In the long run some kind of emmisions test at the WOF will do the job,but then cars like mine,although well maintained,but no cat,no o2 sensor etc might struggle

[petone 0]

Depends how tough they make the testing, I'm in the same boat as you: My 19 year old banger doesn't use any oil or water and has been well looked after since i've owned it, and previous owners from the looks of things, but it is an old engine with even older technology (or lack of it) and doesn't have a cat or o2 sensor.

I agree with who ever said a well maintained old car should be better than a new heap, so maybe emmissions testing is a better idea than age restriction.

Is this restriction to reduce emmissions, fuel consumption or both?

also, is the emmissions problem really that bad though, how often does someone see a car smoking really badly nowadays?

Edited October 16, 2006 by petone

[m325i 705]

Carl is dead right, any gains will be offset with the cost to replace.

Fuel economy:

The worst car isnt even that bad if you don't floor it everywhere.

My STI is not really any worse than my e30. Nothing noticable anyway. The way you drive it has 100x more impact. I suppose it just so happens that 'economical' cars are slow, so you dont drive them 'spirited'. So it exacgerates how ecomonical they are.

Solution IMO is make it more expensive to register older cars, like Japan. Therefore it gets to a point where you may as well upgrade to a newer car.

I know you e30 g33ks love that idea.

[kerrynzl 3]

Unless there is inflation, cars will continue to decrease in value as they get older [with more mileage/owners etc] the Market will dictate that. Anything older than seven years becomes uneconomical to import [for a profit anyway] because they are depreciated to much in NZ.

At the seven year mark, there is accelerated Depreciation in Japan [because of their Roadworthy laws] this is the age that most cars influx into NZ.

Cars less than Four years are almost the same for a Dealer to Source in either Country [when all costs are included ]

Dealers are constantly adapting to the Market [the Buyers] trying to fill the void the public demand makes

I personally think cars already here [pre 1999] will depreciated at a slower rate initially[because of supply] but the public will sway towards newer cars as they won't be much more expensive [The free Market will always sort itself out]

The Market influences the Supplier [not the other way round]

[DCEIVN 0]

This took me ages cause I deleted is half way through by mistake - sorry if it doesnt flow well!

In the short run:

Age restrictions will force importers to bid only on newer cars wheras economy restrictions will narrow the base even further to more economical cars (consumption and environmentally effecient is included in 'economy'). Let's assume that we are the only country introducing these regulations at this point of time and that we do import cars of similar stature currently (not just old uneconimical cars). With 100 countries already importing cars from Japan, and due to the relatively smaller size of New Zealand's economy and therefore demand, the impact of a change in the type of cars demanded by New Zealand on the worldwide market will be negligble.

The type of imports coming into New Zealand is surely going to change - we will see newer and more economical cars, this doesn't mean their price is going to rise from what they currently sell for, in fact, one could argue that the price of newer imports will fall as there will be a greater supply of them relative to before.

When considering the cars currently in New Zealand, Kerry is correct, vehicle prices will always depreciate (unless one is considered an absolute classic where over time it will appreciate). Age restrictions will mean that 'old cars' will now depreciate at a slower rate than before as they are now no longer available. Assuming that the population grows at a steady rate and a constant proportion of this population will demand an 'older' car for whatever reason, this increasing relative demand will offset depreciation - however this will be more apparent in older cars that are demanded due to tastes such as BMWs.

In the long run:

Oil prices will have a major influence in the market. Assuming the the supply of oil is diminishing, firstly this will increase importer costs and secondly increase running costs of vehicles. Import costs can be built into inflation as it will increase the cost of all imports not just older/newer ones. This means that due to the relative increase in price of imports, the relative demand for cars already in New Zealand will rise. However, this will only be noticeable when oil prices escalate beyond control.

Due to the ever diminishing supply of oil, the cross elasticity of demand of cars w.r.t. petrol will be continually rising. This means that sooner or later it will not be viable to own a guzzler. So what defines a guzzler - whoever argues that your 4.0L V8 is more economical than his 2.0L japper as yours is maintained better is not comparing apples to apples. I think it is safe to expect that newer cars are more economical as are those with smaller engines. Manufacturers of supercars are always trying to go faster, with much attention being paid to economy at the moment with the introduction of hybrids etc, it is safe to assume that newer cars are more economical. Therefore your guzzler is going to depreciate faster than any japper in the long run when petrol prices have a larger influence on our tastes.

Overall:

The impact of this plan in the immediate short run will depend on the car you own or plan to buy. I am not sure what is and what isn't imported, but lets pay attention to E30s and E36s (catering to the majority of readers). Assuming E30s are no longer imported, it is unlikely that the restrictions will appreciate the value of your car as no supply is being hindered. Supply is fixed as to what is currently in the market. As for an E36, assuming they are currently imported, the supply of them will suddenly be cut short. Therefore, we could argue that you may face a small appreciation as enthusiasts or try to 'get in quick'. As for newer BMWs, well this is a more complicated case requiring many more assumptions. If we assume that there is a constant demand for imported european cars in whatever shape and form, this proportion will decrease after the imposition of new regulation. This is because the small pocket buyer will have to let go of his dream to own a euro and therefore buy a cheaper imported japper. Now assuming that suppliers react to demand not before it, Supply is now greater than demand and therefor prices of new imported BMWs will fall so the market can readjust. The same small pocket average joe is the one that will help reduce the rate of depreciation in your vehicle. In the long run, the value of your old BMW guzzler will depreciate quicker and quicker if we assume that the price of cars becomes more and more dependant on the price of petrol (cross elasticity of demand or correlation theories).

cheers

[cainchapman 0]

Just a quick point. E30's are already off the list as they are deemed unsafe. Many fair arguments.

I was not implying that my 4l V8 was more economical than a 2l motor. I can tell you that my 12 year old 4l V8 is more economical than my 1 year old 4l Ford! Safer and more luxurious as well.

NZ has (among many other highest per capita numbers) the highest number of Ferrari's per capita. The price of oil will need to be truly magnificent before I decide to get a gutless car.

I view petrol like coffee or water, I pay what the price is as I need it. Otherwise, be like Gus, get a bike.

[Guest Spargo]

Total Swiss registrations in 2005 were 284, and although this may not sound like much it does mean that Switzerland has the highest number of Ferraris per capita of any country in the world.

.

Edited October 16, 2006 by Spargo

[Bullitt 0]

Im gonna stand by my E30 fuel economy too. Around town I dont stand a chance but considering I live 2ks from work that dont matter to me as I bike anyway. On the open road my M325i gets better fuel economy than my gfs 1996 1.3 Starlet, hers is good but mine is better because Im only doing 2500 revs with basically no effort and can always stay in 5th.

Im very free market orientated, I didnt believe in the 1996 crash regulations and I dont believe in this, totally unjustified.

[OLLIE 26]

some good discussion going on here. i'd just like to say ..

I think that this proposal to restrict imports is possibly a step in the right direction to...

a cleaner environment, safer cars, less traffic, more people using public transport, nicer looking cars everywhere etc..

just need to get some decent public transport in place for it all to work.

something needs to be done to stop NZ being a scrapheap for japans left over cars.

[hotwire 352]

Interesting discussion going on here

Agreed we don't need to be a dumping ground for Japans crap - like we have been in the past.

But I think these burecrats in Wellington that are writing the rules need to wake up & smell the roses!

Firstly:

If theyré so hell bent on emmissions then why are we one of few countries that don't enforce catalytic converters being retained on vehicles - it's something thats been manditory in other developed countries for donkeys years.

First thing the boys here do with their new pocket rockets is to remove them.

Secondly:

Any emmision measuring at WOFs needs to be staggered to cater for older vehicles - my old arguably classic 78 E12 520 certainly aint the most fuel efficient car (especially around town) albeit immaculately maintained & seviced, although have to say that since bolting L Jetronic injection onto it fuel economy definitly has improved. It should now be as efficient as the E30 that donated the injection to it.

There are thousands of similar "classic" vehicles out there & to penalise them with a blanket emmision reading is totally unjustified, -as with mine they generally aren't every day runners either.

Thirdly:

Why are there no restrictions on the bringing in of commercial vehicles from Japan?

We have realitively strict impact standards for cars to meet & yet these dont have to comply.

Most of these are early to mid 90's 4WD diesels that are poorly maintained (as with most vehicles out of Japan) & generally behind the eight ball in diesel technology - compared with the Europeans.

With an open market on importing of these all it is doing is putting more of them on our shores for people here to justify the need for one - to run the kids to school -in Auckland.

Over time fuel prices will certainly impact on Joe average & dictate what he drives to a point but equally there are others out there that for them it wont be an issue & they will justify their Hummer & the fuel tanker in tow.

It's called choice!

[DCEIVN 0]

I agree, it would take a lot or petrol hiiking for me to give up my E28, yet I did buy a bike to save petrol and parking. And I do not drive my E28 unless I'm going up to Manfield. But you have to consider that this is a car forum, it is not a fair place to take a sample from especially on such a topic, so whats the use arguing as to how high petrol prices would have to be to give up driving our cars? I mean did anyone on this forum purchase their car with the first and most important requirement being its economy? (you're nto choosing only from BMWs - from all cars)

A free market is all well said and done, it does provide an individually effecient outcome, however its not socially effecient.

Car drivers do not take into account externalities imposed on the environment when they drive and when they purchase cars. They do not take into account noise disruptions when adding mufflers as it increases their own wellbeing etc etc the list goes on. How free do you want your market to be? If there is no regulation then there is complete anarchy. The concern here is to reduce greenhouse gas emmisions. Who when purchasing a car thinks about this minor fact? Nobody. So if a free market was the way to go you are effectively saying that grenhouse gas emmisions arent of concern. You, me and everyone else will act in their best interests yet the net outcome is that society will suffer (global warming etc). The net social benefit with these restrictions imposed is greater than without them. The reality is that without regulations such as these, humans will eventually drive themselves into extinction

There is a loss in total surplus when imposing such regulations, however, it could be possible to reduce this loss. People are suggesting other methods of deeming cars are safe to drive and safe for the environment. WOF is a regulation to make sure cars are safe to drive as are the frontal impact laws. I don't know how frontal impact laws were derived from as they are generic for any import, however there could be a better solution. An example could be that government should deem safety of imports and even new cars by crash testing. Some cars which completely fail could not be allowed, some which are poor in a few areas could be allowed at a premium with compulsary full insurance. The premium could be built into registration or even as a direct tax built in with insurance companies. Furthermore, those that pass safely could be normally imported, and those which pass with flying colours could even perhaps be subsidised on registration. A scheme such as this could ensure more socially effecient decisions by individuals with the outcome that vehicles are safer on the road.

What I just realised is that the age restriction is based on when Japanese imposed emmisions standards, not our own. Is this not of any concern to anyone or are Jap standards pretty strict? Everyone is questioning why the government is imposing generic regulations on imports instead of introducing emmissions testing perhaps into WOF or compliance. Cost vs Benefit scenario perhaps? Introducing emmisions testing would not be cheap in relation to the proposed scheme?

Taking into account what hotwire said, I do believe the government is not consistent enough, and from what Ollie said that these are good steps to achieve certain measures. IMO the governemnt needs to start spending more money on public transport than current. Apparently NZ is one of only OECD countries to be pulling money out of public transport and spending more on roading where all other countries are doing it the other way around.

[Jazzbass 1]

As I understand it, the visible smoke test comes into effect anytime now for a wof?

I think that's about time. As said above, the large number of JIs which belch vast quantities of smoke is appalling. It happened to me, too - my first JI was a Mitsi Eterna. Within a few months of ownership it was smoking heavily. I couldn't stand it, so got the motor done. A year later it was as bad again. The motor was just worn out. The speedo reading when I bought it was 85k. I suspect it was actually 285k.

Due to my bad experience, I now notice smoky cars more and I see that a high proportion seem to be Mistis.

OTOH, my son drives a '92 Primera which we bought from a friend who maintained it fastidiously. It 298k and doesn't smoke or smell.

A good maintenance programme seems to me to make a huge difference.

As far as petrol consumption goes, to me it really is a bit of a red herring. As inferred above, if I had to choose between paying $10-$20 more per month to drive what I love, or that much less to drive a POC - I'd pay the extra. Its only money and if I can afford it, its my schoice where I choose to spend it. I don't smoke or drink and my main vice is buying musical instruments. A few extra bucks on petrol is insignificant to me. All that said, I've noticed bugger all difference in fuel consumption between my 3 BMWs: 318, 325, 528. I've found I had to push the 318 foot to the floor all the time to get any sort of action from it, so the economy was negated.

[hybrid 1039]

You also need to have tougher warrant standards so they cant be on the road in the first place. As it is now, I see very little reason why 'most' NZ's cant have a fuel efficeint car already.

I think more of the case is that warrent standard(s) need to be fair.

Everytime I roll my e46 through the warrent station they pick on something .. Its actually funny watching them over test the e46 to find any fault with it. Where as I have taken older cars through with more issues than you can shake a stick at .. and they have passed through without a problem.