I’m moving to California (LA area) from Illinois in a couple of months
and I was wondering if some kind souls could tell me when I am supposed
to have my car registered in CA, get new license plates, and get
a new driver’s license. Also, when do I really **have to** get these
things done? My Illinois license plates don’t expire until April ’95
and my driver’s license doesn’t expire until June ’96. How much should
I expect to pay to have my car registered in CA?…I have a ’92 Acura Integra.
Will I have to get new emissions for my car? Any information would be greatly
appreciated. Thanks!!
Gilbert Yu
gy2…@eehpx5.cen.uiuc.edu
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
In article <328ofa$…@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, gy2…@eehpx5.cen.uiuc.edu (Gilbert Siang Yu) writes:
|> I’m moving to California (LA area) from Illinois in a couple of months
|> and I was wondering if some kind souls could tell me when I am supposed
|> to have my car registered in CA, get new license plates, and get
|> a new driver’s license. Also, when do I really **have to** get these
|> things done? My Illinois license plates don’t expire until April ’95
|> and my driver’s license doesn’t expire until June ’96. How much should
|> I expect to pay to have my car registered in CA?…I have a ’92 Acura Integra.
|> Will I have to get new emissions for my car? Any information would be greatly
|> appreciated. Thanks!!
|>
I just recently moved CA and had to undergo the same thing. I couldn’t answer
any of the first few questions, since I got my car registered here as soon
as I bought it in Texas. I’ve heard that if your a student then you can drive
around in an out of state vehicle but as soon as you take up residency in CA,
he have to register your car with the state. I’m not certain on this point
though.
What I’m certain of is this….. registration for my car (’92 Nissan 240SX)
was about $170. This is a yearly fee as I’m told which kind of sux. I’m used to
NY state where you only pay about $40 to register your car for two years
(actually it might depend on the type of car, I don’t know…I had an ’81 BMW
320i then). Anyway, I’m babbling. Since your is a ’92 car I wouldn’t be too
worried about passing the smog inspection here. It’s a mandatory test you have
to perform on your car, just like inspection in some states. Unless you’ve done
something weird to your car it should pass. Mine did, with no problem. In case
it doesn’t pass you have to…of course….fix the car so that it does.
Another thing you should be aware of is the smog impact fee charged here. Check
under your hood. On the inside there should be a sticker which says that your
car was built according to Federal standards (or something like that). If it
also says it was built to California standards then your ok. If it doesn’t be
prepared to dish out $300 extra to register your car. What the guy at AAA told me
was that this is done so as to discourage people from bringing in their
out-of-state cars. Whatever……
Anyway, hope this helps.
Andrea
ro…@corte-madera.geoquest.slb.com
In article <328tld$…@k2.San-Jose.ate.slb.com>,
ro…@lark.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Andrea Rosso) wrote:
> under your hood. On the inside there should be a sticker which says that your
> car was built according to Federal standards (or something like that). If it
> also says it was built to California standards then your ok. If it doesn’t be
> prepared to dish out $300 extra to register your car. What the guy at
AAA told me
> was that this is done so as to discourage people from bringing in their
> out-of-state cars. Whatever……
I have lived in California a couple of different times. I was under the
impression that this "impact fee" was only assessed when a person who
already lives in California buys a "non-California" car out of state and
brings it in.
Things do change, though.
–
This message courtesy of the Plant Operators’ Think Tank.
p…@gate.net
Got to register your car 7 days after moving in, dude! At least it was that way
when I moved here in ’90. It may have changed to 14 days, I think that I have
heard that recently. One big thing to remember is that out here we have
something called smog, and you will need to get your car checked once every two
years. The first time is the big one — it’s like $400.00 (for out of state car,
just this once + the normal smog and registration (smog and reg depend on your
car) I think you said a newish integra, well you’ll definately get hit there,
CA goes by age on the car, probably more than a couple hundred registration.
About the license, I would do that too, real soon! One thing is the road
surfaces are pretty good around here, and who do think pays for it? Well, partly
comes from $$$ raised from these things, and taxes etc.
I think you should come on out, check out the situation — if you plan on
staying, do these things right away!!!! It’s a no-no not too, and besides there
are plenty-o-fines if ya get caught not doing it by the book!
Brian
—
In article <pj-1008940523590…@pjw.dffl.gate.net>, p…@gate.net (P.J. Wilkins) writes:
|> I have lived in California a couple of different times. I was under the
|> impression that this "impact fee" was only assessed when a person who
|> already lives in California buys a "non-California" car out of state and
|> brings it in.
|>
|> Things do change, though.
|>
Unless they totally ripped me off, I don’t think so. They gave me a little
flier which just stated that this applied for any car comming from out-of-state.
I would think regardless of whether or not your a CA resident.
Andrea
In article <1994Aug9.191952.24…@MITL.Research.Panasonic.COM>, t…@ATVL.Research.Panasonic.COM (Teri Baukal) writes:
You might want to wait a year. I read that the next PASSPORT will
have HONDA egineers/designers involved in designing the interior.
The current one is just a rebadged RODEO, but sounds like the next
will have HONDA involvment, if that matters at all to you.
Me peronally would wait for the new EXPLORER.
– –
* 57 VW Bug * 65 Valiant HP273 * 66 Comet 390 * 67 VW Bug * 70 Mustang 351 *
* 66 Corvair * 72 Comet * 75 Torino * 76 Capri 2.8 * 78 Capri 2.8 * 82 X-11*
* 85 Scirocco * 86 Scirocco 16V * 90 Bronco II *
* 94 Thunderbird 4.6 V8 *
— ————————- –
/ _____ PH(208)396-3146 FAX(208)396-5136
/ / _ _ /) (_/_ _ _ /) _ _ e-mail: ka…@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com
_/ \ _(_|_/(_//_ __/ _(/_/)_(/_//_(/_/(_ : ka…@hpdmlct.boi.hp.com
\________________________(/____________Hewlett-Packard Co. Boise,Id.USA
In <1994Aug9.191952.24…@MITL.Research.Panasonic.COM> t…@ATVL.Research.Panasonic.COM (Teri Baukal) writes:
>I would like to hear from other Rodeo/Passport owners about how they like their
>vehicles. Any problems? I have only been to one Honda dealership, and I haven’t been
>to Isuzu yet even though I know the Rodeo is the same car as the Passport, just
>without the Honda name. I assume the Rodeo will be cheaper than the Passport only
>because it doesn’t carry the Honda name. The Rodeo also has a better warranty: 5 years
>or 65K miles as opposed to Honda’s which is 3 years/36K miles.
I was just looking at Consumer Reports reliability charts…
And the Isuzu Rodeo is 95% worse than average.
I don’t know what that means, but it’s so low on the chart they had to
split the bar in two, and specifically say it was 95%…
The only one that is worse is the Jeep Wrangler at 107% below average.
According to this chart, relatively good SUV’s are:
Toyota 4Runner, Nissan Pathfinder, Olds Bravada, Geo Tracker, Suzuki
Sidekick(same as Geo).
The Isuzu Trooper, Jeep Cherokee 4, Mazda Navajo, and Ford Explorer are
not too far below average either 5-10%.
Personally, I like the Nissan or the Olds, at least the ones I have seen.
You might want to look around before setting your sights on a Rodeo.
—
Steve Sheldon [These are my own opinions]
Iowa State University ICSS Resource Facility by day
shel…@iastate.edu ProMap by night
BEEF! — Cause the west wasn’t won on salad.
IMHO, there are better SUV’s out there than the Rodeo/Passport. Not that
the Rodeo/Passport is bad (especially with the new Isuzu-made V6), but
you can get better. I think the Pathfinder, 4Runner, Grand Cherokee, and
Explorer are all better vehicles (if you like, email me and I’ll tell
why). However, the Rodeo is the price winner in its class and there’s
certainly something to be said for that. You owe it to yourself to at
least check out the others though. If your heart is still set on a
Rodeo/Passport, I’d recommend the Isuzu version since it will be less
money for the exact same vehicle. (That is, assuming that you can get
good service from your local Isuzu dealer[s]).
David.
—
+—–==== opinions expressed do not represent those of my employer ====—–+
| David L. Campbell, IBM Austin, TX | "… and you eat your own soul |
| Internet: dcamp…@austin.ibm.com | until the only thing |
| VNET: dcampbel at austin | left is appetite…" |
In article <DCAMPBEL.94Aug9224…@timshel.austin.ibm.com>, dcamp…@timshel.austin.ibm.com (David L. Campbell) writes:
> IMHO, there are better SUV’s out there than the Rodeo/Passport. Not that
> the Rodeo/Passport is bad (especially with the new Isuzu-made V6), but
> you can get better. I think the Pathfinder, 4Runner, Grand Cherokee, and
> Explorer are all better vehicles (if you like, email me and I’ll tell
> why). However, the Rodeo is the price winner in its class and there’s
> certainly something to be said for that. You owe it to yourself to at
> least check out the others though. If your heart is still set on a
> Rodeo/Passport, I’d recommend the Isuzu version since it will be less
> money for the exact same vehicle. (That is, assuming that you can get
> good service from your local Isuzu dealer[s]).
> David.
> —
Agreed- except on one point. Motorweek(tv) tested a Passport last week, and
they liked it, with exception to the interior not being up to Honda’s standards.
However, they said that the Passport EX (top of the line) was "several hundred
dollars" less than the Isuzu. The base Isuzu is cheaper than the base Passport
though. Go figure…
Pico
In article <sheldon.776468…@cresco.agron.iastate.edu>,
shel…@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) writes:
I was just looking at Consumer Reports reliability charts…
And the Isuzu Rodeo is 95% worse than average.
I don’t know what that means, but it’s so low on the chart they had to
split the bar in two, and specifically say it was 95%…
The only one that is worse is the Jeep Wrangler at 107% below average.
> According to this chart, relatively good SUV’s are:
> Toyota 4Runner, Nissan Pathfinder, Olds Bravada, Geo Tracker, Suzuki
>Sidekick(same as Geo).
> The Isuzu Trooper, Jeep Cherokee 4, Mazda Navajo, and Ford Explorer are
>not too far below average either 5-10%.
> Personally, I like the Nissan or the Olds, at least the ones I have
seen.
> You might want to look around before setting your sights on a Rodeo.
I understand that the Rodeo recieved a complete overhaul…New engine etc
in 92.
I believe that the older ones BEFORE 92 were trouble prone and may have
sqewed the chart.
Sean Alexander
Looks like time for someone who actually has experience OWNING
one of these posts an answer. My wife is actually the owner of
our 1993 Rodeo, but as I’ve been around it, driven it and had a
good chance to assess it’s build quality, and overall design I
think I can post some first hand info.
It’s a nice truck/car. My wife and I drove all the competitors
vehicles and this was the right size and feel for us (well her
actually) since some of the others were a bit more "trucklike".
Me – I drive a RX7 turbo and a BMW 325…and the Rodeo is too
slow, too soft and too much for the kind of spirited driving
I like. However, that goes for any SUV.
We got a 93 – last year with vent windows, but no power mirrors.
Whatever. The "rig" has had NO problems, although there’s a very
slight "squeek" in the steering column, which I suppose we’ll
have the dealer look at when they do the next service (which is
a recall for a camshaft seal). Power is pretty good, it blows
along just fine, although I still dislike auto tranny’s which we
have in that vehicle. Fuel economy is poor – 15-18mpg is all we
get, but then that’s the same as my RX7, so for the weight and lack
of aerodynamics it’s OK. Off road we have barely done, like most
SUV’s, and we were very impressed by the traction and ability. Far
more capability than we want to explore.
Nits – The clock is mounted below the radio. Dumb! The outside
mounted tire save interior room, but the hassle of opening the
rear window, swinging away the tire, and then lowering the tailgate
is a bit much – in my opinion. I like the tire mounted under the
back area better.
Final note – my wife LOVES this rig. That’s really all that counts.
–
Alan L. Peterman (503)-684-1984 hm & work
a…@qiclab.scn.rain.com Tigard, Oregon 97224
As I get older the days seem longer and the years seem shorter!
In article <1994Aug9.191952.24…@MITL.Research.Panasonic.COM> t…@ATVL.Research.Panasonic.COM writes:
>I am intending to purchase a Honda Passport or Isuzu Rodeo Sports Utility Vehicle
>(SUV) in the near future. The Honda dealership let me take a Passport for the evening
Lemme guess, your other car is an Acura Vigor
Spiros
–
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos Kokomo, IN 46904 (317) 451-0815
Software Development Tools, AD/SI c2…@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Delco Electronics/GM Hughes Electronics "Reading, ‘Rithmetic, and Readnews"
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <328jto$…@mailer.fsu.edu> pa…@cac.psu.edu (Joe Pasko) writes:
>From: pa…@cac.psu.edu (Joe Pasko)
>Subject: *******Stealth ES vs RT************
>Date: 9 Aug 1994 19:03:20 GMT
>Keywords: stealth,es-rt
>I’ve been looking at the Dodge Stealth and was considering
>an ES or an RT. I was considering and RT till I called
>the insurance company looking for the price difference in
>insurance:
>Here it is:
>92 Stealth RT(NON-TURBO): $2500/yr
>92 Stealth ES : $1500/yr
>Called a few places and theses are about the mean prices.
>I’m wondering what are the differences in the ES and RT ???
>I assume that the RT is faster/nicer as it’s about 4K more,
>but what makes it $1000/yr more in insurance ????
It’s basically an excuse used by insurance companies to extort more money from
their mostly captive audience. For example, our 1986 Mazda 626 hatchback has
a turbocharger which gives it a little more power at WOT; as if you briefly
had a six cylinder engine. This mild turbo has cost us hundreds of rediculous
turbo "surcharges." Yet, if it had a 3.0 liter six banger instead of a 2.2
liter turbocharged engine, I doubt there would have been as much extortion.
There are power/weight ratio tables that show that those vehicles with high
values are involved in more accidents. The point of contention I have is
where the insurance companies draw the line. I believe it one of the criteria
is how to make up for revenue lost the previous year on fixing grandma’s
Cadillac
Regards,
Eric Webb
In <328jto$…@mailer.fsu.edu> pa…@cac.psu.edu (Joe Pasko) writes:
>I’ve been looking at the Dodge Stealth and was considering
>an ES or an RT. I was considering and RT till I called
>the insurance company looking for the price difference in
>insurance:
>Here it is:
>92 Stealth RT(NON-TURBO): $2500/yr
>92 Stealth ES : $1500/yr
>Called a few places and theses are about the mean prices.
>I’m wondering what are the differences in the ES and RT ???
>I assume that the RT is faster/nicer as it’s about 4K more,
>but what makes it $1000/yr more in insurance ????
Actually, the RT may not be faster, but it’s probably nicer. Both the
ES and RT have the same engine and tires, so acceleration should be
similar. The RT comes with a spoiler in the back, which may actually
hurt acceleration. It also comes with side-vents, a sportier
suspension, and it’s a little lower to the ground.
Other than that, the RT comes with a lot of things standard (like power
everything, ABS, etc) that are optional on the ES. If you like the
features on the RT, and the insurance company is just going by whether
the sticker says ES or RT on it, then you should probably look for an
ES with an option package that adds almost all the RT features. The
only thing you’ll miss out on are the RT’s cosmetic features (spoiler,
vents, etc).
–
Sam Horrocks
ICS Department, UC Irvine
Email: s…@ics.uci.edu
Joe Pasko (pa…@cac.psu.edu) wrote:
: I’ve been looking at the Dodge Stealth and was considering
: an ES or an RT. I was considering and RT till I called
: the insurance company looking for the price difference in
: insurance:
: Here it is:
: 92 Stealth RT(NON-TURBO): $2500/yr
: 92 Stealth ES : $1500/yr
: Called a few places and theses are about the mean prices.
: I’m wondering what are the differences in the ES and RT ???
: I assume that the RT is faster/nicer as it’s about 4K more,
: but what makes it $1000/yr more in insurance ????
: Comments/suggestions welcome:
: —
: =================================================================
: Joe Pasko
: Systems Development / Unix Systems Administration
: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute pa…@scri.fsu.edu
: Phone (904) 644-0193 FAX (904) 644-0098
Many of the RT’s are twin turbo charged so it being the same model means
not much to the insurance companies. Now you can see that now the only
monopoly left after the Phone company is gone is THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!
(excuse me for yelling.)
Joe Pasko (pa…@cac.psu.edu) wrote:
: I’ve been looking at the Dodge Stealth and was considering
: an ES or an RT. I was considering and RT till I called
: the insurance company looking for the price difference in
: insurance:
: Here it is:
: 92 Stealth RT(NON-TURBO): $2500/yr
: 92 Stealth ES : $1500/yr
: Called a few places and theses are about the mean prices.
: I’m wondering what are the differences in the ES and RT ???
: I assume that the RT is faster/nicer as it’s about 4K more,
: but what makes it $1000/yr more in insurance ????
: Comments/suggestions welcome:
That’s amazing! Both the ES and the R/T have the 222-hp DOHC engine.
The R/T has perhaps wider tires, but that’s it! I could understand the
base Stealth being lower, since it has the 164-hp SOHC engine. Maybe the
insurance company made a mistake, and the lower rate is for the base model.
: Many of the RT’s are twin turbo charged so it being the same model means
: not much to the insurance companies. Now you can see that now the only
Actually, the Turbo is "limited production" AND my insurance specifically
notes turbo…
Craig
–
Craig Huffnagle
To fly is human, to hover is divine! ’91 Dodge Stealth R/T Twin Turbo
chuff…@dmso.dtic.dla.mil I don’t think it up, I just type it.
The ES Bites, every time I see one on the road it dimisihes the the feel
of my RTT
In article <328jto$…@mailer.fsu.edu>, pa…@cac.psu.edu (Joe Pasko)
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> I’ve been looking at the Dodge Stealth and was considering
> an ES or an RT. I was considering and RT till I called
> the insurance company looking for the price difference in
> insurance:
> Here it is:
> 92 Stealth RT(NON-TURBO): $2500/yr
> 92 Stealth ES : $1500/yr
> Called a few places and theses are about the mean prices.
> I’m wondering what are the differences in the ES and RT ???
> I assume that the RT is faster/nicer as it’s about 4K more,
> but what makes it $1000/yr more in insurance ????
> =================================================================
> Joe Pasko
> Systems Development / Unix Systems Administration
> Supercomputer Computations Research Institute pa…@scri.fsu.edu
> Phone (904) 644-0193 FAX (904) 644-0098
If the non-turbo is $2500/yr, then how much is the twin-turbo version?
Are you certain that they aren’t giving you the turbo price? If given the
choice based on $4K purchasing price, I’d go with the RT just because it
looks so much cooler than the ES. Same engine, wider tires, cooler
plastic.
Does anyone know whether the suspension or handling is any different?
————————————————————————-
Luke Lin | I didn’t do it | Internet:lu…@ecs.comm.mot.com
ITT Tools, LMPS | Nobody saw me do it | Right Thing,Right Way
Motorola | You can’t prove | G. Kawasaki
Schaumburg, IL | anything B. Simpson | Right Tool,Right Process L. Lin
————————————————————————-