Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Smart Shopper 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
|
Replying to: volvomax (Nov 20, 2007 12:29 pm)
|
|
2008 Toyota Highalnder Sport & Limted models built after sept DO NOT NEED ANY LETTER FOR CMVSS114. Only base models need letters because immobilizer is standard in Sport & limted but optional in base models. Thats why we DO NOT have " See notes" section in front of highlander ltd & sports models. You only have to refer " see notes" columns When it says So.
|
|
|
Replying to: wrajinder (Nov 20, 2007 1:01 pm) "If the GVWR of this vehicle is less than 10,000 lbs, and the manufacture date after September 1, 2007, it must be equipped with an electronic lock and immobilizer system that meets CMVSS 114. " It also says this on paragraph 9 of the EXPLANATIONS section. How do they know it meets CMVSS without a letter? I would not try to import anything built after sep-01 right now. http://www.riv.ca/english/html/mod_inspect_requirements.html
|
|
|
Replying to: mattyjack (Nov 20, 2007 1:08 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: bodble2 (Nov 20, 2007 12:35 pm) This statement, in particular, just blows me away: "The immobilizer standard is an effort to close the loophole. Immobilizers do not contribute to pulic safety or security at all. " I am an informed individual, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that an immobilizer does not make a whit of difference for a professional car thief. It's justa sop to consumers. Cars are stolen primarily to chop up and part out. don't need the ECU for that. For cars that you want to resell in another market, a bright guy w/ a PC can bypass the immobilizer anyway. The problem is that the Canadian Gov't wants the motor companies to provide documentation that these US cars meet this new, useless standard. Naturakky, the motor companies,who don't want their Canadian dealers to lose business, are refusing. So, in essence, you have a standard that does nothing to help consumers,and because of the way the Canadians have chosen to implement it, allows car companies to not cooperate. The fact that car companies chose not to cooperate should not be surprising to anyone. Why should they cost their Canadian operations money? What is in it for them? Its not a question of Kool Aid, its just reality. The REAL reason why you have standards for importing vehicles isn't consumer protection, it is so the gov't can guarantee a monopoly, and the gov't can guarantee its share of revenue from that monopoly.
|
|
|
Replying to: volvomax (Nov 20, 2007 1:50 pm) We can debate till the cows come home whether the immobilizer is effective or not. Data suggest that it is, as opposed to alarm systems, which generally are not effective. But it doesn't matter here. My point is that the intent, I repeat, the intent, of the immobilization standard is for public safety and security, not as a tool for manufacturers to stop importation of cars into Canada. "Why should they cost their Canadian operations money? What is in it for them?" Are you kidding me?! What's in it for them? Is that what you said? There's everything in it for the manufacturers!! They can artificially keep prices high!! There may actually be very little impact on the dealers if the manufacturers adjust Canadian prices to fall in line with US prices. Lower MSRP, lower invoice cost = similar margin. In fact, I dare say if the manufacturers adjusted Canadian prices, the Canadian dealers will stand to gain, because more people will buy cars in Canada. Almost every dealer in Canada is hurting right now due to the disparity between Canadian & US prices. You are so out to lunch on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: maluna (Nov 20, 2007 12:19 pm) This standard does not apply to vehicles over that weight - mainly trucks and buses. Few consumers use vehicles which have a GVWR over 10,000 lbs. This advice is not new. I have seen it elsewhere. I think that they may have flagged it NEW for the particular section whereas it may have been included in a general section. On the VAFUS pdf files which have not recently been posted but is now posted again at this site http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/VAFUS.pdf this data is in paragraph 9 on page 2. Obviously RIV is being given a hard time on this so they have spelled it out in each section to which it applies. |
|
|
Replying to: darfer (Nov 20, 2007 11:39 am) My dealer told me that he cannot take my car because the car does not have the title. The car is considered as ‘sold’, the paperwork was done but the car was not registered.The dealer cannot take used vehicle that has MSO, the dealer needs the title. Did anybody investigate the issue of returning unregistered car to the dealer?
|
|
|
|
|
I was planning on getting a Rav4 or CR-V but Toyota and Honda have lost my business due to their actions on this issue. I am now looking at the 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid (we currently have a Camry Hybrid and love the hybrid funtion and economy). The 2008 Escape Hybrid comes standard with an Anti-theft device. I see that under section 5.3 for vehicles manufactured after Sept 1 2007, the RIV lists under Admissable "2008 All Models" for Ford, however, the Notes says "See explanations section". Does that mean that even though 2008 all models are admissable, I would still need Ford to provide a letter stating that the vehicle comes with an imobilizer that meets CMVSS 114? Also, does anyone have experience dealing with Ford on this issue, and/or on US Ford dealers selling to Canadians?
|
|
|
Replying to: edmunds07 (Nov 20, 2007 2:05 pm) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Smart Shopper Importing Car into Canada from US
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
