SF to Mexico
 

Hi, i have a week to see as much of US as i can starting in SF and leaving via LAX. Had thought i would spend 3 days in SF and have that leg pretty sorted i think. Would love to see Mexico but cant work out the best way to get from SF to Mexico and back to LA. Like most travellers, money is a factor to consider. would love to hear your insights. many thanks :)

Fly. US rental car companies will not allow you to drive their cars into Mexico.

OK - bit confused. You say you want to see as much of the US as possible - but only want to got to San Francisco and <u>Mexico</u>???

Where in Mexico - it is a BIG country. No matter what part thooug, you'd have to fly.

W/ 1 week you would have 3 days in SF and 3 somewhere in Mexico, then a flight back to LAX to fly out.

Any reason you aren't just staying in California? A week is barely enough time to see SF, a tiny bit of the coast and a couple of days in LA.

oops - should be &quot;No matter what part though, . . . &quot;

Mexico is a wonderful country, but its huge, and you don't start to get a real feel for what the country is really like until you are South of Mazatlan...
If you arrive in SF.....think of Yosemete, Death Valley, even Las Vegas and the Grand Canyon..ending in LA. The roads in the US are pretty good for covering large distances, if you like driving.
I'd save Mexico for another trip. The distance from LA to Mexico City is the same as from LA to New York (I read once)...

You don't have enough time to go to Mexico! Seriously, unless you fly down for a couple days. Hardly seems worth it.

One week is barely enough to do San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the coast in between the 2 cities imo.

Make up your mind, Sophie. SF, LA or Mexico?

Thanks for your replies and sorry, should have worded it differently. i've always wanted to go to Mexico and SF looks very interesting. LA and the coast in between doesnt hold that much interest for me. i know 7 days is short but its all i've got and as it will likely be my only trip anywhere around there for years to come i'm trying to cram as much in as i can. (LA is a long long way from New Zealand where i am from). Seems like flying is the only way to go??

San Francisco is fantastic so is Mexico (huge country btw), but 7 days is awfully short to do justice to either.

Sophie- Seven days? Have you ever heard of jet lag? SF is only reasonable choice

Really?! I dont like the sound of that. I read a great article about 'three days in SF' which looked pretty good. I figured three days in SF then three days somewhere (who knows where) in Mexico then one day to travel back up to LA for return trip home. Is this really totally unfeasible? I'm not worried about jetlag, not really into overly 'touristy' things and am a pretty action type of a person.

It's a 12-hour flight from Auckland to Los Angeles; I don't know if it's longer to San Francisco, but you will probably be jetlagged when you get there.

If you don't have to leave from Los Angeles, I would spend the three days you've already planned in San Francisco, then either go to Yosemite for a couple of days or down the coast to Monterey and Carmel. Monterey has a world-class aquarium, and Carmel has an old Spanish mission and is a lovely little town.

Lee Ann

Do 3 days in SF and then fly down to Cabo for 3 days and you have a day of travel..
Great deals on Expedia or
Alaska Air..plug in flight &amp; hotel.
Great fun in the sun and the water is gorgeous and you can do this cheap..
lots of fish tacos and Mex beer.
Have fun NZSophie!

If the coast does not hold that much interest, consider SF and Guadalajara (direct flights are available). But if I were you, I would spend a couple of days in SF and then spend time going to Yosemite and Sequoia NP and whatever is left over in LA.

This is such a ridiculous question I'm inclined to belive the poster is a troll.

Would you advise someone to fly from US to NZ for 3 days and then on to Australia for 3 more just because they look interesting?

As long as you have the money for plane tickets, I don't see why not...

Fly to San Francisco and spend three day there, fly to Mexico (Puerto Vallarta is a favorite of mine and has lots of flights departing San Fran international airport). Stay 3 days. Fly to LAX and catch your flight home.

Ag3046- most kindly, she's not asking our permission or our opinion - she's asking how to accomplish what she wants to do... which is see San Francisco for a couple days then go somewhere in Mexico.
;-)

Puerto Vallarta is only a 2-1/2 hour flight from SF (2 hrs from LA). Cabo even closer (but more expensive once you're there).

Sophie: From reading between the lines in your posts it sounds to me like you thought there was a way to do SF, Mexico and LA by land in 6 days. Since you seem surprised we all recommended flying.

Car/buses/train? No way - no how - not a prayer.

You need to decide why you are flying half way around the world into SFO and out of LAX. If it is to see a bt of California youu have time for that - but just a tiny bit. If it is to see mexico, again you have time to see a tiny bit of Mexico. But to do both it will be expensive and you will spend a LOT of time in airports in your week.

So if Mexico is your dream - then arrange a flight straight there from landing in SFO - or maybe stay one night in San Francisco. Then fly from Mexico to LAX to fly out. But first you have to decide what part of Mexico you meant - it is a huge country.

If on the other hand, California is your dream and you aren't interested in the coast - then stay 3 nights in SF and fly to LA. Spend the rest of your time there.

My question is... did you already buy plane tickets?

hi there, thank you for the suggestions. to clarify, i have a conference in Texas and am then flying into SF. (i was just trying to keep initial msg brief) I then have 7 days to see as much as i can before i have to leave via LAX Seeing LA doesnt hold much appeal - it's just where the airport i fly home on is. so i was hoping to see SF (sounds like an amazing place) and somewhere in Mexico (obviously not the whole place!). SUZE - I have only booked my tickets up to arriving in SF and out of LA, none of the bits in the middle as yet. thanks again :)

Altho you could do a city in Mexico..its such a huge country and each city is so different. Which one would you pick? You will spend a day flying into and out of Mexico..so you lose two days right there. The flight itself might not be that long, but to get to the airport 2-3 hrs early, clear customs etc is going to eat up much of your travel days. I really would suggest seeing as much of Calif as you can. Maybe flying from SF to Las Vegas, see the Grand canyon..then fly back to LA and out. There is so much to see between LA and SF... You can check all the posts in the Fodor's USA/California site and see what others are planning to do in California in much the same time frame as you have.

Texas is alos big, but the flights to Mexico are generally shorter, particularly if you decide that you want to see something other than the west coast (Yucatan? Oaxaca?}. I would skip SF altogether.

I would still spend the 3 days in SF, spend 2 - 3 days along the CA coast and 1-2 days in LA or the San Diego area.

Coming from NZ is a huge deal, I know, so I understand your wanting to cram in as much as possible. We once &quot;did&quot; Italy &amp; France &amp; England in 2 weeks, though it wasn't our first trip to any of those countries. Quickies can be great!

Everything depends upon your style of travelling. If you just want to get a feel for a place, by all means &quot;stuff in&quot; as much as you can. If you're a savorer, you may want to hang around for longer. If you're the kind of traveller who feels like you've got to accomplish something (a 'gottaseethesites' person), 3 days in SF might not be enough for you.

In any case, I don't see anything wrong w/spending 2 or 3 days in SF then flying to Mexico. You can get to some wonderful places in Mexico from SFO w/in 5 or 6 hours.

You can get nonstop flights - SFO to Cabo is only 3 hours, Puerto Vallarta only 4 hours. Either would be a fine place to spend 3-4 days to get a taste of Mexico (I prefer PV myself).

Sure Mexico's a &quot;huge country&quot; and all that, but I don't see why she should miss seeing a little part of it for that reason.

I often fly down to San Francisco for a long weekend. So I think 2-3 days there is OK. Again, no you won't see everything, but you can certainly get a feel for the city.

Sophie, Any way you can stretch the trip to 10 days instead of 7? You're traveling such a LONG ways to begin with. Say 4 days San Fran &amp; 6 days Puerto Vallarta... NOW ya got a plan
:-)

Sophie,

I regret to inform you that your plan has little likelihood of providing you with an enjoyable travel experience.

I would not travel from NZ to North America for a one-week vacation; however if you are determined to do so, I suggest to go to Mexico or California, but not both.

If you go to California, I suggest you study what lies between LA and SF along Highway 1. It may pique your current declared &quot;lack of interest&quot; for one of the most beautiful stretches of coastline in the world.

HTTY

I've heard doing that drive during the winter months can be a bad idea with rain and mudslides. Any insight?

IF I were in your shoes &amp; IF plane tickets hadn't been purchased... I'd try to talk you into going to Mexico for 1 week, straight from Texas (much closer, check a map).

San Francisco is one of my favorite U.S. cities, but I LOVE a vacation in Mexico.

I am a SF native, &amp; I do love my home, but I have to agree w/suze on this. If for no other reason than the fact that SF is more like NZ than Mexico is.

I also disagree w/those who say the op's doomed to not enjoy her trip if she tries to do everything she's planned. Everybody has different travel styles, and 'too much' for X may be 'just right' for Y. 'Just right' for Y may be boring for Z. One of the beauties of travelling is that it isn't rule-bound! :)

Perhaps... but flying from Texas to San Francisco, touring, flying to Mexico, touring, flying to Los Angeles for a flight home, would be considered overly ambitious in a 7-day timeframe, regardless of your travel style.

Sorry, meant that last comment as a question??????? (not a statement)

Not mine, suze, at least not always! I mean sometimes we hang in a place for 10 days, other times we're hummingbirds. Do I get as much out of the hummingbird travelling as the slow-travelling? I don't know. Perceptions &amp; needs &amp; tolerance levels &amp; boredom levels &amp; stimulation levels, bleahbleahbleah -- all vary wildly, even within our own lives, no?!