[Super_BQ]

I suppose those that are in the market to buy a new (2nd hand import from overseas) car should be looking to buy within the next month.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4290470a11.html

...the Independent Motor Vehicle Dealers Association warned the rules would increase used car prices by about $5000

I don't know if prices would rise that much but I do feel this new policy would have minimal impact on the overall car market. The policy only applies to freshly imported (post Jan 2008) cars and not to already existing old dungers on the road. Furthremore even cars just brought in under 7 (or 8 years depending from which country) year age, NZ would still see a surplus of olders cars on the road as long as they meet the air compliance.

What does this say to those that are learning to drive a car (who may be more likely to be in a fender bender?). I guess if they want to buy a newer import, they will have to pay more (but then what % of 7 or 8+ old cars are brought into NZ?).

BQ

[james the mechanic]

Of course it could be argued, that this will be good for the consumer…
After all any vehicle that cannot meet the proposed emissions targets, basically has something wrong with it, this could be as simple as being overdue for a service but could also be indicative of a very major and costly fault. These vehicles will also be, by definition, not running at full efficiency and thus wasting fuel, which is again bad for the consumer, not to mention the planet.
I agree that any kind of compliance (IME&I) adds cost, however I think $5000 is probably unsubstantiated hyped up scaremongering, from a group of people who just don’t want any more legislation to comply with in their industry. Would $5000 on the price of an import be a bad thing?
If the NZ government is truly committed to reducing exhaust emissions, the only way is to introduce emissions testing into the WoF, however that is a major undertaking and this testing of imports, is probably a very good starting point, and reasonably easy to implement in comparison.

Best wishes:nice1

James

[Super_BQ]

If the NZ government is truly committed to reducing exhaust emissions, the only way is to introduce emissions testing into the WoF, however that is a major undertaking

Hi James.

For some added reading, I grew up in BC (Canada) and saw the heartaches of the provincial govt's "Air Care" program and it's failures. There was a point (some years ago) of the BC gov't for terminating the whole air care testing of vehicles because the program was a $ pit and showed no clear benefit to the public.

From this dated (but concise study) article (http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/1998/vehicle/aircare.html):

During the first five years of AirCare, the average annual cost of the program, including test fees, repairs, expenses, and lost time is conservatively estimated to have been nearly $63 million, or $1 million every 6 days (see table 2). This amount does not include the environmental damage resulting from two million extra vehicle trips per year to and from testing and repair facilities.

I often wondered the actual cost to the NZ public for doing extra trips to take their vehicle to the WOF 2 times a year? (additional air pollution - you tell me?)

AirCare has virtually no effect on either SOx or PM10, the pollutants considered the most harmful. Table 3 gives the value of the emission reductions as claimed by AirCare and calculated by APA. According to the estimates in the list above, the AirCare program, which costs residents of British Columbia $63 million annually, provides them with, at most, $521 thousand worth of air reduction benefits, or a value of less than one cent on the dollar.

Any program that reduces air pollution, even by a small amount, has a real value, but only if that value is not off-set by even larger incidental costs. The economic question is whether the $1 million in societal resources spent every 6 days on AirCare could not be used more productively somewhere else. What could that amount buy in better health care, education, environmental protection, public transport, food, or housing?

Please note that this report was done by an independant economic think tank you can be sure the BC gov't would have a much rosier result of the true economic benefit to the residents.

[alan999]

[QUOTE=Would $5000 on the price of an import be a bad thing?
[/QUOTE]

Words fail me. Presumably if it was good, $10,000 would be even better.

[james the mechanic]

As I said, ‘Any vehicle that cannot meet the proposed emissions targets, basically has something wrong with it, this could be as simple as being overdue for a service but could also be indicative of a very major and costly fault. These vehicles will also be, by definition, not running at full efficiency and thus wasting fuel, which is again bad for the consumer, not to mention the planet.’

In order to reduce emissions, modern car engines carefully control the amount of fuel they burn. They try to keep the air-to-fuel ratio very close to the ideal ratio, for economical fuel consumption and therefore by default the lowest possible harmful emissions. This is achieved electronically, within the ECU, making hundreds of calculation a second based on information harvested from various sensors on the engine and exhaust system. This allows the engine to adjust the ‘fuel trims’ accordingly to maintain the optimum conditions, as much of the time as possible. Theoretically, at this ratio, all of the fuel will be burned using all of the oxygen in the air. For petrol, the ratio is about 14.7:1, meaning that for each unit of petrol, 14.7 units of air will be burned. The fuel mixture actually varies from the ideal ratio quite a bit during driving. Sometimes the mixture can be lean (an air-to-fuel ratio higher than 14.7), and other times the mixture can be rich (an air-to-fuel ratio lower than 14.7).
The main emissions of a car engine are:
• Nitrogen gas (N2) - Air is 78-percent nitrogen gas, and most of this passes right through the car engine.
• Carbon dioxide (CO2) - This is one product of combustion. The carbon in the fuel bonds with the oxygen in the air.
• Water vapor (H2O) - This is another product of combustion. The hydrogen in the fuel bonds with the oxygen in the air.
These emissions are mostly benign, although carbon dioxide emissions are believed to contribute to global warming. Because the combustion process is never perfect, some smaller amounts of more harmful emissions are also produced in car engines. Catalytic converters are designed to reduce all three:
• Carbon monoxide (CO) is a poisonous gas that is colourless and odourless.
• Hydrocarbons or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are a major component of smog produced mostly from evaporated, unburned .fuel.
• Nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2, together called NOx) are a contributor to smog and acid rain, which also causes irritation to human mucus membranes.
Moving on purely to diesel, in terms of the environment, diesel has some pros and cons. The pros -- diesel emits very small amounts of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide. The cons -- high amounts of nitrogen compounds and particulate matter (soot) are released from burning diesel fuel, which lead to acid rain smog and poor health conditions. This can and is combated to a lesser extent by Catalytic converters and regular maintenance.

We are talking about cat testing and diesel smoke testing imported vehicles at the point of entry into NZ, something that has been going on as part of the MoT in the UK for at least ten years now. I also have first hand experience of this, not only as a vehicle owner but also an MoT inspector.
Quote Super BQ, ‘I often wondered the actual cost to the NZ public for doing extra trips to take their vehicle to the WOF 2 times a year? (Additional air pollution - you tell me?)’
Are you suggesting that we abandon road safety in favour of not using a vehicle on two occasions a year? :confused:
So you think the environmental cost of driving a vehicle to the test, twice a year may to more than the cost of driving it around permanently as a gross polluter?:confused:
I’m somewhat confused, where’s the logical conclusion of your argument???:confused:

Best wishes:nice1
James

[james the mechanic]

It’s called a question Alan999, why not try formulating an answer, prior to posting?
Would $5000.00 on the price of an import not promote the sale of NZ new vehicles?
If so it could even result in vehicles being assembled in NZ once again, thus creating thousands of jobs in manufacturing, so yes I suppose its possible that your right, $10,000 might well be better. Is importing used vehicles from Japan long term sustainable?
Remember we are talking about the cost to the public of buying an imported vehicle, not the cost of private imports, although that would rise also, granted.
Best wishes:nice1
James

[alan999]

It’s called a question Alan999, why not try formulating an answer, prior to posting?
Would $5000.00 on the price of an import not promote the sale of NZ new vehicles?
If so it could even result in vehicles being assembled in NZ once again, thus creating thousands of jobs in manufacturing, so yes I suppose its possible that your right, $10,000 might well be better. Is importing used vehicles from Japan long term sustainable?
Remember we are talking about the cost to the public of buying an imported vehicle, not the cost of private imports, although that would rise also, granted.
Best wishes:nice1
James

Formulating an answer isn't difficult. It's no, if you couldn't work it out from what I posted.
As far as I am aware, ALL NZ new used vehicles are sold. I see no fields full of rusting cars, so no is the simple answer to your question about stimulating the sale of NZ new vehicles. All it will do is increase their value, not sales.
I doubt that NZ will start manufacturing cars because of this legislation, although without seemingly knowing it you have highlighted the reason for the new rules. Commercial, not environmental. F and P and others are having to abandon NZ manufacture in a market with common leglislation, I see no reason if there was a NZ assembler that they wouldn't be thinking likewise.
And what of the amount of people employed in imports, should we not be concerned about them? And any Japanese backlash on exports from NZ. And if it isn't sustainable let market trends dictate.

A lot of people can't find the extra money. Pre 1990 cars are exempt so they will remain on the road for many more years and as far as I can make out from reading again and again the new rules there is a transitional/ saving period prior to 2008 letting existing imports carry on meeting 2006 legislation. These cars are going to be the problem in years to come when they are well within their second decade. If pollution is the driving force then isn't it resonable to presume that a newer model, say a 2000 built to 2000 regs will be far cleaner than a 1985 without making it comply with euro3/ jap 2002 regs that it must fall short of? Take away the maintenance issue, the same owner will look after his car in a similar manner wheter it be a 2000 or 1985 model.

But i deviate, my argument is not that cars need to be cleaner but to the question "Would $5000 on the price of an import be a bad thing?" the answer hardly merits using as many as two letters.

[alan999]

As I said, ‘Any vehicle that cannot meet the proposed emissions targets, basically has something wrong with it, this could be as simple as being overdue for a service but could also be indicative of a very major and costly fault. These vehicles will also be, by definition, not running at full efficiency and thus wasting fuel, which is again bad for the consumer, not to mention the planet.’




This isn't so, from my reading diesels will have to meet 2002 levels which are more stringent that current at the time of manufacture. A brand new car, leaving the factory in 2000 would not comply with the new rules.

[alan999]

I'm sorry this is coming in bits, but isn't the new test for diesels the one that was abandoned in the UK because it blew so many engines? You'll have far more knowledge of this than i do. It entails racing the engine to flat out unloaded for a few times then holding it at flat out governed rpm for three 2 second bursts. Doesn't the UK revised test now entail monitoring the oil temp and holding it at a % of max revs?

[james the mechanic]

This is a forum Alan999,
Simply wading in and posting, NO is not, generally conducive to the flow of the thread. Clearly you are unable to comprehend the point I was, making about formulating an answer prior to posting. I for one would find it useful, to know a whether an answer / post is based on a persons experience, opinion or just to provoke a reaction. The word NO is not sufficient for the former, only the later purpose.

Back to the subject at hand,
Quote Alan999: ‘ALL NZ new used vehicles are sold. I see no fields full of rusting cars, so, no is the simple answer to your question about stimulating the sale of NZ new vehicles. All it will do is increase their value, not sales.’
That’s right it’s a balance called supply and demand.
Quote Alan999: ‘Although without seemingly knowing it you have highlighted the reason for the new rules. Commercial, not environmental.’
Can we not have both? The introduction of emissions testing in the UK stimulated new car sales considerably. My use of the word manufactured should probably be substituted with assembled, (I apologies). Market trends are as you unwittingly suggest are more often than not controlled by legislation which is the subject that we are debating.
Qute Alan999: ‘This isn't so, from my reading diesels will have to meet 2002 levels which are more stringent than current, at the time of manufacture. A brand new car, leaving the factory in 2000 would not comply with the new rules.’ 'I'm sorry this is coming in bits, but isn't the new test for diesels the one that was abandoned in the UK because it blew so many engines? You'll have far more knowledge of this than i do. It entails racing the engine to flat out unloaded for a few times then holding it at flat out governed rpm for three 2 second bursts. Doesn't the UK revised test now entail monitoring the oil temp and holding it at a % of max revs?'

I guess you don’t learn it all from book reading then do you?:laugh
I think I will let you have the final word (try to make more than two letters) as I will resist the temptation to comment further as it is quite clear, we will not see eye to eye on this.
Best wishes:nice1
James

[kzn2nz]

From an environmetal point of view, testing newly imported vehicles is a good idea.

Ongoing testing is generally the cause of the problems mentioned in the Canadian context.

If a vehicle is tested at first registration in NZ, and possibly when re-registered in a new owners name, that should provide protection to the consumer and the environment.

Just my 2c worth!

[alan999]

This is a forum Alan999,
Simply wading in and posting, NO is not, generally conducive to the flow of the thread. Clearly you are unable to comprehend the point I was, making about formulating an answer prior to posting. I for one would find it useful, to know a whether an answer / post is based on a persons experience, opinion or just to provoke a reaction. The word NO is not sufficient for the former, only the later purpose.

Back to the subject at hand,
Quote Alan999: ‘ALL NZ new used vehicles are sold. I see no fields full of rusting cars, so, no is the simple answer to your question about stimulating the sale of NZ new vehicles. All it will do is increase their value, not sales.’
That’s right it’s a balance called supply and demand.
Quote Alan999: ‘Although without seemingly knowing it you have highlighted the reason for the new rules. Commercial, not environmental.’
Can we not have both? The introduction of emissions testing in the UK stimulated new car sales considerably. My use of the word manufactured should probably be substituted with assembled, (I apologies). Market trends are as you unwittingly suggest are more often than not controlled by legislation which is the subject that we are debating.
Qute Alan999: ‘This isn't so, from my reading diesels will have to meet 2002 levels which are more stringent than current, at the time of manufacture. A brand new car, leaving the factory in 2000 would not comply with the new rules.’ 'I'm sorry this is coming in bits, but isn't the new test for diesels the one that was abandoned in the UK because it blew so many engines? You'll have far more knowledge of this than i do. It entails racing the engine to flat out unloaded for a few times then holding it at flat out governed rpm for three 2 second bursts. Doesn't the UK revised test now entail monitoring the oil temp and holding it at a % of max revs?'

I guess you don’t learn it all from book reading then do you?:laugh
I think I will let you have the final word (try to make more than two letters) as I will resist the temptation to comment further as it is quite clear, we will not see eye to eye on this.
Best wishes:nice1
James

I accept your apology.

[akp713]

When it comes to imposing emmissions tests on vehicles I'm always very sceptical because of my experience in Massachusetts. After a decade od testing it was discovered that the tests were inherently flawed and often failed cars it should have passed and passed cars it should have failed! They then came up with a new test which was supposed to work. The trick was, if your car failed you ad to have it repaired at the shop that failed you then re-tested. Thus they had a monetary incentive to fail you. Our cars were old and we knew they'd never pass so my father regularly paid off the mechanic to fake a test pass. This was a pretty common way around the test.

As for raising the price of an import, that would have to be a very negative thing for many people who can't afford a newer car. I'll be arriving in February and I can afford to spend a maximum of $4000 on a car and it will need to last 2 years at least before I'll be able to afford a new one as I will be a student. If prices increased I couldn't afford to buy a reliable car and I'm sure many Kiwis would face similar problems. In a country without reliable public trasport that would be unacceptable.

[alan999]

When it comes to imposing emmissions tests on vehicles I'm always very sceptical because of my experience in Massachusetts. After a decade od testing it was discovered that the tests were inherently flawed and often failed cars it should have passed and passed cars it should have failed! They then came up with a new test which was supposed to work. The trick was, if your car failed you ad to have it repaired at the shop that failed you then re-tested. Thus they had a monetary incentive to fail you. Our cars were old and we knew they'd never pass so my father regularly paid off the mechanic to fake a test pass. This was a pretty common way around the test.

As for raising the price of an import, that would have to be a very negative thing for many people who can't afford a newer car. I'll be arriving in February and I can afford to spend a maximum of $4000 on a car and it will need to last 2 years at least before I'll be able to afford a new one as I will be a student. If prices increased I couldn't afford to buy a reliable car and I'm sure many Kiwis would face similar problems. In a country without reliable public trasport that would be unacceptable.

It isn't even as though the new rules will help produce a cleaner fleet. There seem to be so many contradictions. Allowing old cars to continue is a joke. Even if one could argue it was a cherished old friend why should 1000 other road users pay though the teeth to have the climate benefit negated by 1 old banger?

And why isn't the bigger picture looked at? If a guy scraps his old 2000cc oil burner because of legislation and buys a 5000cc gas guzzler, is that person generating any less pollution? And what about the damage to the Earth's resources. Now he uses maybe 3 times that the fuel the diesel would, all in the name of pollution. Wouldn't he be better keeping the diesel? And don't forget all the pollution and resources used by manufacturing the car that wouldn't be needed.

Is there any need to have a personal car over say 2000cc petrol/ 2500cc diesel. Wouldn't an engine capacity cap both reduce greenhouse gasses, and the rate at which we use fuel? This benefit would need several years to work itself through though.

Perhaps older cars could be priced off the road. A simple emission test would show up any major faults without the complication of having to test each individual model. Older cars would attract greater road licence fees, say starting at 10 years old escalating year on year so that you would really have to love your car to keep it beyond 15 years old. The simple fact that the fleet would be modernised will bring with it pollution improvements.

Or to be really radical, have the road licence tied to emissions measured at the six monthly test. The worse the emissions the greater the pain. This would make the polluter pay. The one with the old banger, the one with the newish poorly maintained car and the gas guzzler that might be on it's first test. But no car would fail.

I heard that the motor industry, ie cars, vans and trucks contribute 4% of the total NZ generation of greenhouse gasses. If the current legislation would work with the motor trade then what would happen if we applied it to the industry causing the most pollution, generating at least 12 times more greenhouse gasses.

The dairy industry. Now we could all start by drinking less milk and eating less meat. But what we could really hope for is a few foreign countries to dream up a law intended to restrict legitimate commercial enterprise and hope that they can get it past the gullable by marketing it under the green banner. Suddenly we stop exporting NZ dairy products. Someone on a Jap forum actually says what is wrong with imposing a 5000 yen levy on a litre of NZ milk? Japanese milk industry increases production, objective met. NZ dairy industry collapses, we get cleaner air but have very little else.

Or perhaps we could fit cats to the cows instead?