Over the KW limit

[Post-Ironic]

2005 models and before technically comply (assuming zero engine modifications), however, it's really not worth the amount of money you'd have to pay in insurance, let alone the added police attention. The moment you start playing around with the car or modifying it you're about as screwed as an Ikea flat-pack pantry.

No insurance company will want to touch you in a Z33 with a 10-foot pole unless you're throwing money at them. Insurance as a secondary driver works, but expect the premium to go through the roof for the poor chap acting as primary driver (plus you'll miss out on the chance to get 3 years of insurance history on your side when you get off P's). I went through this whole dance about two years ago before deciding it wasn't worth it - too much money and hassle just to drive a Z33.

In my opinion you'd be best off finding something else to daily on your P's - 86s are similar price these days and you'll be able to do a heck of a lot more with them within P-plate legality. Smaller hatchbacks will honestly give you just as much of a fun drive at an absolute fraction of the cost provided you shell out for a decent suspension set-up and tyres + save the inevitable speeding ticket from being too debt-inducing.

But hey - each to their own. Buy it and have a proper good mang but don't be surprised when you get targeted or rack up a uni-degree's worth of debt. Z33's are solid cars, especially if you put them on a bit of a diet.

 

No clue what Lurch said but it was probably right (in a Lurch kind of way).

Edited August 26, 2018 by Post-Ironic

[260DET]

Amongst the obligatory flak there is a lot of sensible and useful knowledge here, like Post-Ironic's post above. If it is impractical to have a Z right now you can always come back later, Z's aren't going away any time soon.

[gav240z]

And I don't see Z33s getting more expensive in the next few years. Probsbly the opposite. Z34s are dropping nicely also. Seeing a few in the low 20s now. Personally I never much liked the 350z styling. The 370z is nicer, but not exotic looking enough for me. They do look better with some subtle mods.

In a few years they will be even cheaper. Obviously more tired also however.

I like the 86 suggestion, they are common so parts will be cheap and the higher spec ones have nicer interiors. They are a newer MX5 with a hard top.

[hmd]

You are getting flak because you are not really asking for advice but you are only searching for answers that suit you.

 

On the insurance side of thing, even if your dad owned and insured the car you need to make sure you are named as a REGULAR driver of the car (premium will increase correspondingly) otherwise you are really not insured. Also as Dave said if you are not licensed to drive the car the insurance will be null and void.

 

[gav240z]

Bingo.

[Retro Z]

.. but who cares about insurance when 350z's are fully sik hecktic bro .

Didn't you mention in your other thread that you cannot afford 98 octane fuel and only 95? In my opinion buy a 2 door Kia until you're legal to drive whatever you want. Otherwise the Police will give you a world of pain. It'll save you and your dad alot of money and heart-ache. 

 

[Hokin]

If its something you want to do, then go for it and dont let other people tell you otherwise.

 

I would suggest checking out this forum as its specifically for the Z33 and Z44 fans. They may be able to better answer your questions or provide you with some good advice based on personal experience:

http://www.zclub.com.au/

[Taylor_Ladenfur]

Thank you very much for your answer Hokin I have been trying to setup an account there for ages they still have a login issue for me that is.

[d3c0y]

Did you read this: https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/licensing/driver-licensing/applying/provisional/restrictions 

It's pretty clear on what you need to prove to get an exemption. So really I was right, unless you make up some bullshit which is probably what your mates did.

[Taylor_Ladenfur]

Again as I stated before they were mechanics so that was their reasoning for them to have and drive high performance cars and yes I have read that hence why I asked if I should apply for one or not.

[CBR Jeff]

Sorry but it has been coming.......

Jeff

 

[Rickers]

19 hours ago, Hokin said:

If its something you want to do, then go for it and dont let other people tell you otherwise.

Maybe I'm a 'girl' or a 'wuss', but these restrictions are in place for a reason... Let's not advocate driving cars that have been deemed too powerful for new drivers, I don't want me or my family to be the person/people killed when they lose control.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-25/every-road-death-in-australia-since-1989/9353794

https://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/statistics/summaries/young-driver-statistics

Probationary_kit.pdf

Edited August 28, 2018 by Rickers

[260DET]

19 hours ago, Taylor_Ladenfur said:

Again as I stated before they were mechanics so that was their reasoning for them to have and drive high performance cars and yes I have read that hence why I asked if I should apply for one or not.

That would be for mechanics driving cars that they are working on, fault checking, that sort of thing. No point in you trying to get under that limited exemption for the reasons already mentioned by others.

[Cozza]

Not a Wuss Rickers just more sensible than some. Like many young blokes I used to be quite reckless and spared little thought for consequence. Now I have a young family, my priorities have changed.

i hope my kids don’t do the silly things I did as a kid  

 

i was intrigued by these stats:

• 69% were killed in single vehicle crashes
• 62% were involved in crashes that occurred in high alcohol times

 

Note: High alcohol times are those times of the day and week when casualty crashes are ten times more likely to involve alcohol than casualty crashes at other times.

 

i assume the 69% killed in single vehicle crashes are likely due to speeding.

the 62% stat is a weird one, I don’t understand the relevance of a high alcohol time, we’re they drinking or not? Surely that’s the point. 

[C.A.R.]

I'm happy to 'take care of' the remaining 31%.

 

 

For a price.

[CBR Jeff]

28 minutes ago, Léon said:

I'm happy to 'take care of' the remaining 31%.

 

 

For a price.

Remember no women and children. 

Jeff

[Rickers]

10 hours ago, Cozza said:

the 62% stat is a weird one, I don’t understand the relevance of a high alcohol time, we’re they drinking or not? Surely that’s the point. 

Yeah, definitely a weird one. I guess these stats are about young drivers lost, not necessarily themselves being to blame (i.e. someone else could of been drink driving). Or maybe they wanted that stat to be used alongside something like:

or

 

Would of been much better to have a "over the limit" stat though...

 

https://www.thedefenders.com.au/articles/drink-driving-statistics/

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2015/country_profiles/Australia.pdf

Edited August 28, 2018 by Rickers
Forgot links to stats...

[1600dave]

11 hours ago, Cozza said:

Like many young blokes I used to be quite reckless and spared little thought for consequence. Now I have a young family, my priorities have changed.

Wait till your kids start driving and see how worrying it is ! 

I've always been a little sceptical of the stats - as an example, the "safest" drivers according to some of the graphs are 95 year olds........ Perhaps "sceptical" isn't the right word, just that some are badly conceived. As an example, the age one would be better if it took into consideration the average distance driven per year by each age group. Can't remember the exact figures, but I did a training course run by CAMS for potential instructors back when they were looking to introduce their own road safety course (never got off the ground) and a lot of these figures were discussed in depth - for instance that particular graph looked very different when distance travelled was taken into account.

Other examples - 94% of deaths on rural Vic road occurred on roads with 100kph limit - what %-age of roads in rural Vic have 100kph limits though ? Id say quite a lot (maybe even 94% !)

The "high alcohol times" - useful stat ? Or just framed to justify curfews / passenger limits ? Don't get me wrong, both good ideas, I just fail to see the logic behind the actual stat.

Rickers one above - 30% of deaths due to alcohol occur between 9pm and 3am on Thurs, Fri, Sat nights. Obvious answer there is that if you're going to get blotto and drive, do it at 9am on a Tuesday - much safer !

Sadly, statistics are only as good as the logic behind the stats, you can use them to prove pretty much anything if they are framed carefully.

Edited August 28, 2018 by 1600dave

[gav240z]

There is a saying that if you torture the numbers for long enough they will confess to anything..

On that note the numbers showing men are less safe are definitely being pedalled by misandrists and that #triggers me./sarc.

 

[Rickers]

43 minutes ago, 1600dave said:

I've always been a little sceptical of the stats - as an example, the "safest" drivers according to some of the graphs are 95 year olds........ Perhaps "sceptical" isn't the right word, just that some are badly conceived. As an example, the age one would be better if it took into consideration the average distance driven per year by each age group. Can't remember the exact figures, but I did a training course run by CAMS for potential instructors back when they were looking to introduce their own road safety course (never got off the ground) and a lot of these figures were discussed in depth - for instance that particular graph looked very different when distance travelled was taken into account.

Other examples - 94% of deaths on rural Vic road occurred on roads with 100kph limit - what %-age of roads in rural Vic have 100kph limits though ? Id say quite a lot (maybe even 94% !)

The "high alcohol times" - useful stat ? Or just framed to justify curfews / passenger limits ? Don't get me wrong, both good ideas, I just fail to see the logic behind the actual stat.

Rickers one above - 30% of deaths due to alcohol occur between 9pm and 3am on Thurs, Fri, Sat nights. Obvious answer there is that if you're going to get blotto and drive, do it at 9am on a Tuesday - much safer !

Sadly, statistics are only as good as the logic behind the stats, you can use them to prove pretty much anything if they are framed carefully.

I agree, always take these figures with a grain of salt - especially those that you have not formulated yourself. I have a mate that worked in the insurance industry and says, like you, he has seen graphs with a distance factor added. When this is added, apparently (as I have not seen what my mate has), the shape represents more of a U then a steady decline, as now the lack of driving elderly folk do and the amount of crashes they're in are related. To me, the U shape is logical, as most young drivers are learning to drive, and finding their limits and elderly folk are slowly losing their reaction time and focus, amongst other skills. The only reason I used the statistics above was because they were from Australia, and in all of the stats/graphs I've seen, fatality numbers decrease as the young drivers start growing up (i.e. when the OP would be legally allowed to drive their car), so I thought it would represent the OP's situation better than foreign stats.

NZ Research

43 minutes ago, 1600dave said:

Rickers one above - 30% of deaths due to alcohol occur between 9pm and 3am on Thurs, Fri, Sat nights. Obvious answer there is that if you're going to get blotto and drive, do it at 9am on a Tuesday - much safer !

That's just being silly  The other 70% happens during those other times, it's better to do it between 9pm and 3am on Thurs, Fri, Sat nights!@!@!@

Edited August 28, 2018 by Rickers

[1600dave]

I have one stat which I will admit isn't a very large sample size.

Out of all p-platers I have seen driving a 350Z in the last 9 days, 100% of them have stuck it into a wall at Eastern Creek in a big way.....

[TOO60Z]

This is bullshit! I got reported for suggesting an 86 to a member that couldn’t handle the truth and now everyone is doing it and getting away Scott free. I want a sports car now Daddy, NOW! I’m going to my room to play matchbox cars and I don’t want to listen to any silly RTA or mean people who don’t like me. Call me when my car is ready and tell Mummy I want fairy bread for din dins.

[Taylor_Ladenfur]

,

Edited August 29, 2018 by Taylor_Ladenfur

[TOO60Z]

So you are fraudulently insuring a vehicle under a dead persons name. That’ll work.

[Taylor_Ladenfur]

,

Edited August 29, 2018 by Taylor_Ladenfur