Sign In Join 



Importing Car into Canada from US

4513 messages,  Last post on Dec 02, 2009 at 8:40 PM

You are in the Smart Shopper Forum. Your Hosts are kirstie_h & tidester

What is this discussion about? Car Buying, Legislation, SUV


Messages Page 226 of 452
1
...
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
...
452
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#2246 of 4513
Re: not enough support [beaurocratsuck] by mccreeper
Nov 20, 2007 (10:27 am)
Reply

Replying to: beaurocratsuck (Nov 20, 2007 9:23 am)

to ignore the risks in importing a vehicle is bad advice. i am just trying to point out the cons of importing a vehicle into canada. it is not all peaches and rose pedals. try not to give false hope to those who may not be as educated as you. if one has the resources and they have done the homework on both pros and cons then if you accept the risk vs reward then go tot the states. if one is not such a risk taker there are other means of getting a vehicle if in fact they want to buy one. dont turn those people who are happy at buing a car in canada against canadian dealers just because you have te means to go to the states. not everyone should be so lucky to pay cash for a depriciable asset you may or may not be able to drive depending on what seems to be a porus and undecided transport canada. let those people go to the delaers in canada in peace there are deals to be had. once again not a car salesman just a concerned citizen
#2247 of 4513
Re: not enough support [darfer] by beaurocratsuck
Nov 20, 2007 (10:40 am)
Reply

Replying to: darfer (Nov 20, 2007 10:12 am)

I believe your suspicion about someone removing the compliance label so the vehicle could not be exported is correct. If so, someone's playing very nasty.
 
Have you checked with the DMV in the state where you bought the vehicle to see if it is illegal to remove a compliance label or sell a vehicle without a compliance label?
 
Will your helpful dealer take the vehicle back since he claims he would not have sold it if he new the compliance label was needed.?
#2248 of 4513
Re: not enough support [mccreeper] by beaurocratsuck
Nov 20, 2007 (10:49 am)
Reply

Replying to: mccreeper (Nov 20, 2007 10:27 am)

The only risk in importing a vehicle is the misinformation being given by TC and RIV agents.
 
With the exception of those who bought inadmissible vehicles between Sept 01 and early November when RIV updated their list and declared many 08 models inadmissible the list is now for the most part accurate.
 
If you are not a Canadian car salesman you must be married to one
#2249 of 4513
Good Faith by Manufacturers by northernkiwi
Nov 20, 2007 (11:18 am)
Reply
From reviewing the posts on this site, it would appear that many manufacturers are not providing data which would enable the meeting of the CMVSS standards to be determined OR they are making that determination and TC is accepting it.
 
It would appear that these same manufacturers are implying that they will issue a compliance letter on a vehicle by vehicle basis if they concur with the reason for the owner to import the vehicle into Canada. The implication is that a permanent US resident has decided to permanently emigrate to Canada.
 
The manufacturers have convinced TC that the installation of third party immobilizer cannot be safely done - they have implied that their own Canadian dealers are not competent to make the modifications let alone third parties.
 
I would be interested how the manufacturers will convince TC and RIV that the vehicle they did not certify as meeting the CMVSS standards can meet the standards. I don't know if the manufacturer has to spell out what changes they have made to the vehicle after it was bought by a permanent US resident and before it was admitted to Canada - or does the vehicle miraculously make the modifications on its own.
 
The thrust of their actions would show their lack of good faith in dealing with their customers. They are abusing the intent of the system to exploit the consumer. The end result will be comparable to shooting themselves in the foot.
 
The comment that the vehicles are incapable of being safely modified after being sold to the first buyer would negate the issue of any compliance letter unless the manufacturers can detail what has been done to make the vehicle compliant.
 
My comments above may not apply to some vehicles which are technically legitimately excluded from being admissible but I do find it hard to believe that a majority of models produced by each manufacturer would not meet the CMVSS standards OR be modified to meet them. We do it with the bumpers and DRLs, why not the immobilizers? Are there technical reasons that inhibit such modifications? Can any of the manufacturers to whom this post appears to relate please explain to us what these are?
#2250 of 4513
Re: Good Faith by Manufacturers [northernkiwi] by nowarranty3
Nov 20, 2007 (11:36 am)
Reply

Replying to: northernkiwi (Nov 20, 2007 11:18 am)

Northernkiwi hit the nail on the head.
#2251 of 4513
Re: not enough support [beaurocratsuck] by darfer
Nov 20, 2007 (11:39 am)
Reply

Replying to: beaurocratsuck (Nov 20, 2007 10:40 am)

The dealer may take it back, but we would still lose alot of $ as we paid $1200 to ship it from Virgina to Montana. We would have to pay $1200 again to ship it back.
#2252 of 4513
Re: Manufacture Date? [volvomax] by carman23
Nov 20, 2007 (11:39 am)
Reply

Replying to: volvomax (Nov 20, 2007 8:46 am)

How is shopping for the best deal a 'loophole'?
 
Under NAFTA we should be easily be able to bring these vehicles accross into Canada!
 
For the manufacturers to tell TC that their vehicles do not meet Canadian safety standards when they very likely do, and TC accepts it as they do not have the resources to do in depth checking.... now that is a 'loophole'!
 
If I were Canadian auto dealers I would be SCERAMING at my supplier to get the prices down! Where I live all the dealers lots are jam packed as many are flocking to the US for better deals. Considering how absurd the Canadian prices are, I get a little laugh every time I drive by the car lots...
 
On another note, I totally agree that Toyota and Honda are losing customers over this. I was going to buy a Toyota, but now over this fiasco I wont buy another Toyota ever again. I've previously owned 3. Good thing there is a lot of choices on the market.
#2253 of 4513
Re: Manufacture Date? [carman23] by tidester HOST
Nov 20, 2007 (11:48 am)
Reply

Replying to: carman23 (Nov 20, 2007 11:39 am)

Under NAFTA we should be easily be able to bring these vehicles accross into Canada!
 
The NAFTA document is over 2,000 pages long which probably makes it the epitome of "loopholes!"
 
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
#2254 of 4513
Re: Good Faith by Manufacturers [northernkiwi] by shellyh
Nov 20, 2007 (11:54 am)
Reply

Replying to: northernkiwi (Nov 20, 2007 11:18 am)

You really got to the heart of the issue. I hope you are contacting every politician and media organization you can think of. I bet when this is all washed out, we will find out that all or most of the vehicles are CMVSS 114 complaint.
#2255 of 4513
CMVSS 14 Modification by imports4all
Nov 20, 2007 (11:56 am)
Reply
Several posters have alluded to this, but it is obvious that this immobilizer is a fairly inexpensive part (adds $32.00 to the cost of the vehicle if I recall correctly from the information used to promote the idea of making it mandatory) and the manufacturers would not likely install one part for the Canadian market and a different one for the US market. It should be easy to determine if it is the same part by checking the part numbers. More likely, if there is anything different at all between the Canadian and US versions, it is a small difference in placement or similar tweaking, done as an excuse to use the item as a trade barrier.
 
It is the duty of Transport Canada and the RIV to cut through the BS on this issue and determine what the real differences are and how they can be modified to meet the Canadian specs. They should give the manufacturers a reasonable (2 weeks?) deadline to provide the details of the modifications requred (if any), failing which, the vehicles will be deemed to meet the Canadian regulations as long as it has a factory-installed immobilizer (as per vehicle specs or option list). Alternatively, TC can adopt the US regulations which apparently were almost identical in any case.
 
I hope Mr. Lamb and Serge and their group press forward on this basis, because as much as we feel for the individuals who are currently hung up in limbo, there will be many more unless the manufacturers are told that these tactics will not be tolerated.

Messages Page 226 of 452
1
...
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
...
452
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement