Deanh Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 KA DMV will do what ever they want and walk all over people if allowed.They tried it with me. Threatend to garnish my bank account for registration on my truck since I did not pay it and did not tell them that I moved out of state. The poor girl on the phone could not of course tell me any laws or codes or regs that could possibly require me to inform the state of KA as to where and when I moved. I was nice. But it sure was difficult. They do that stuff to my buddy all the time because he is always driving a new old car that is or falls out of registration or has back registration etc. He rarely ever needs to pay them any if 1/4 of what they demand because they can rarely if ever show valid legal proof as to why they are entitled to what they say he owes them. KA DMV must hate my buddy as much as he hates them. Peace and Blessings sounds like the DMV beats to a drummer in all states...not just here...typical of most GOVT departments it seems... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 thats what i am talking about as well....we have also had people trying to buy cars here and ship to other states, bottom line if driven by the customer on California soil you pay taxes....same if bought new out of state and brought back here to ones permanent adress...... There was something several years back where the state lost in court forcing people to pay some sales tax on vehicles. Must have been people new to CA that brought in vehicles that CA tried to make them pay sales tax on? I remember a big article on it in the Sac Bee. Peace and Blessings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 sounds like the DMV beats to a drummer in all states...not just here...typical of most GOVT departments it seems... You can't have equal protection under the law without equal enforcement of the law; that's why they can't cut you no breaks when you break the law: it would be unconstitutional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 correct me if im wrong but i thought the 3.7L in the Mazda was different from the one going in the MKS You're right. Mazda's is it's own version that it developed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I don't even think Ford has released the final power outputs anyhow. There's the 270 number they released, but aren't Ford's estimates usually on the lower side. Wasn't the 3.5 estimated lower than the 265-hp it is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 There's the 270 number they released, but aren't Ford's estimates usually on the lower side. Wasn't the 3.5 estimated lower than the 265-hp it is? they have also been known to overestimate their #'s(1999 SVT Cobra) yet underestimated the #'s in the 2003-04 SVT Cobra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadBflo Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I bought a moto in PA, paid 6% sales tax there and then when reistering in NY I had to pay the difference of 2% (8% sales tax in NY) Like a lot of things every state is different. I am surprised they didn't charge me the whole 8% As for Canada-US th ebig deal used to be that vehicles were priced special in Canada to make up for th ecurrency differences and the PST/GST tax load. IT made i cheaper to buy up there and bring the car back. I recall it being driven be the auto manufacturor's. The car had to be 6 months or a year old if I recall correctlyThe currency fluctuations today I'm not sure where this stands today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 they have also been known to overestimate their #'s(1999 SVT Cobra) yet underestimated the #'s in the 2003-04 SVT Cobra Well, the over-estimate on the '99 Cobras was due to a production flaw, so it wasn't like they intentionally overrated it. I'm thinking Ford is probably sandbagging with the 3.7 in the Lincoln. The 3.5 was initially rated at 250 HP and we ended up with 265, so..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 they have also been known to overestimate their #'s(1999 SVT Cobra) yet underestimated the #'s in the 2003-04 SVT Cobra The 1999 SVT Cobra snafu made Ford estimate their figures on the conservative side since then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 There's the 270 number they released, but aren't Ford's estimates usually on the lower side. Wasn't the 3.5 estimated lower than the 265-hp it is? That's what I thought, too but my inside source tells me that it will be 270 and that they simply didn't have enough time or resources to get it any higher. The 3.5L was advertised at 250 but ended up at 263-265 depending on vehicle. But that was just a general announcement for the engine and not a preliminary rating for the Edge, MkZ or MkX. In this case they're specifically talking about the MKS ratings so I'd expect it to stay at 270 or very very close. Unless my source is pulling my leg, but I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MERKURXR4Ti Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 (edited) The 3.5L was advertised at 250 but ended up at 263-265 depending on vehicle. But that was just a general announcement for the engine and not a preliminary rating for the Edge, MkZ or MkX. In this case they're specifically talking about the MKS ratings so I'd expect it to stay at 270 or very very close. Also, I'm pretty sure the D35's number change was somewhat due to the SAE's new hp rating rules as of that year. Edited February 20, 2008 by MERKURXR4Ti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catalepsy Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I could be wrong, but as I recall, D35 was rated with the new SAE from the beginning. Also, I'm pretty sure the D35's number change was somewhat due to the SAE's new hp rating rules as of that year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I could be wrong, but as I recall, D35 was rated with the new SAE from the beginning. That's what I thought as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MERKURXR4Ti Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I could be wrong, but as I recall, D35 was rated with the new SAE from the beginning. It could have been, my logic (which I may or may not have gotten from anywhere now that I think about it) was that they bumped it up when they changed the testing prior to release. I'm hoping the 270 is an understatement, but I doubt it is, the EB should take care of the moaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 If it's getting 270 hp on non-premium fuel then that might be an incentive for some. I'd like to see a bump in horsepower myself, but the size and the price where the MKS would top out undercuts vehicles (such as the A6 for example) in price yet still offers more hp (or about the same) as the M35, A6 3.6, E350 and 528 (because it best aligns in pricing over the 535. We shall see how this works out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.