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
4505 messages, Last post on Nov 30, 2009 at 11:38 PM
You are in the Smart Shopper Forum. Your Hosts are kirstie_h & tidester
|
During 2003-2004 Transport Canada (TC) decided to adopt an United Nations theft deterrent and immobilizer standard. After consultation with the automobile manufacturers, Insurance Bureau of Canada, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and other auto and insurance industry groups Transport Canada unilaterally decided to jettison Canadian Motor Vehicle Standard 114 and replace it with the UN standard effective Sept 01 2007. That is cars manufactured before Sept. 01 2007 fall under the old standard which essentially was a copy of FMVSS 114 the US standard and to which the European Standard was also deemed to conform. During the consultation process in 2003-2004 with respect to the adoption of the amended CMVSS114 (the UN Standard), the Canadian Motor vehicle Association objected as did the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and the Insurance Bureau of Canada wanted a common standard i.e. FMVSS114 with the option for Canadians importing from US to install a home grown version of CMVSS/FMVSS 114 (BC home grown!!!). Major problems arose beginning Sept. 01 2007 when most automobile manufacturers looked for ways to impose non-tariff barriers to private auto imports from the US. CMVSS114 was the ideal candidate and most auto manufacturers, including GM, in the case of the Corvette about which I originally enquired, are using it to prevent Canadians from buying motor vehicles in the U.S. at lower prices than available in in Canada. If CMVSS 114 did not exist they would look around for something else. The solution is harmonization of motor vehicle standards which Transport Canada have opposed to the detriment of taxpayers who pay their salaries. Accordingly, I do not believe that it is simply the matter of an immobilizer or an absorber. People are flocking to the United States (in such numbers to buy the vehicle of their choice at a lower cost than is available in Canada) that Transport Canada had to change its position with respect to physically allowing purchasers of inadmissible cars into Canada last weekend because the Canada Border Service Agency was inundated at the Canadian Border crossings with so many people with cars that suddenly and unexpectedly had become inadmissible notwithstanding that the purchased had done the proper due diligence with respect to the admissibility of the car before they bought it. For example, most Fords were admissible last week, then on last weekend they became inadmissible. This also happened with a couple of other brands. Most GM’s have been inadmissible. The following statistics compiled by The Registrar of Imported Vehicles (“RIV”) demonstrate the number of Canadians who may have been or will be affected by the unharmonized Transport Canada regulations: Number of Canadians who bought U.S. vehicles last month. 25,000 Estimated number of Canadians who will buy a vehicle in the U.S. this year. 170,000 Previous record for number of Canadians buying U.S. vehicles. 112,000 Estimated number of vehicles purchased in the U.S. that will be new. 40% Number of Canadians calling the registrar per day, looking for information on importing American cars. 5,000 Number of Canadians who called earlier this week, when the dollar hit $1.08 (U.S.) Source: Registrar of Imported Vehicles The status of the harmonization initiative that started in 2002 is shown in the following table: If above table does not appear, go to: http://capcinfo.ca/english/reports/documents/2007/RegHarmon_e.pdf The following is the Report of the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council June 2005: Security and Prosperity Partnership Consultation Vehicle Manufacturers in the North American Environment The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Background: In general, Canadian safety policy has a consistent structure with the U.S. policy. The Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) are largely similar to, and patterned after, the American Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), and flows naturally from the high level of integration in the industry. However, exceptions between the two nations' safety standards do exist with additional exceptions being contemplated. In addition to the actual standards, differences exist between Canadian and American authorities with respect to how vehicle certification is undertaken to show compliance with those standards. Significant differences exist between government and industry regarding the extent to which engineering judgment and electronic simulation should be accommodated for vehicle certification and the level of documentation necessary to demonstrate full compliance. Transport Canada's position would appear to be significantly different than that of the U.S. NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) and is viewed by industry as an impediment to innovative practices to the testing and early commercialization of advanced technologies. (1) CMVSS 208 - Frontal impact occupant protection standards Issue: Transport Canada has proposed requirements for Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 208 for Frontal Occupant Protection that are not harmonized with the belted requirements contained in the recently amended U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208. Industry has formally requested data from Transport Canada that supports the need for different belted occupant standards for chest deflection in Canada than in the US. (chest deflection is one component of this amendment). Transport Canada acknowledges that no Canadian field data is available that would specifically support the intended unique Canadian chest protection requirements. In the absence of unique Canadian data, industry can see no technological reason for a different chest deflection standard in Canada. Transport Canada's proposal would create a further disharmonized regulation despite the fact that they have failed to demonstrate material public benefit that would otherwise be observed from harmonizing with the equivalent U.S. 208. Transport Canada's own benefit analysis, which the industry feels is overstated, indicates only a ½ of 1% reduction in fatalities and injuries. Considering that approx 40% of all vehicle related fatalities and injuries are still related to impaired driving and approx 35% are related to unbelted occupants, the government may want to consider focusing their efforts on areas of occupant safety that present greater opportunities for reduction, such as these driver behaviors. The goal is to harmonize the requirements of CMVSS 208 with the equivalent belted requirements of US regulation FMVSS 208. (3) CMVSS 215 - Bumpers Issue: Canadian standards stipulate an impact to the front or rear of the vehicle at 8 km/h (5 mph) and pendulum impacts on the corner of the vehicle at 4.8 km/h (3 mph). The Canadian t |
|
hey i understand the savings, but something bigger is going on here is all i am trying to say that will have an impact on the future. and just curious what price range of vehicle are you dreaming of buying that would save you $10,000 dollars. because if i told you i am buying an escalade and saving 10,000 dollars you probably wouldlnt care about my kids education you would tell me to buy a smaller car. and if you told me you were buying a minivan and you would be saving 10,000 dollars i would tell you you were misinformed. its not all peaches across the border do all your homework because at the end of the day with lower prices in canada and lower interest rates your payments will be very similar in canada verses the states
|
|
|
Replying to: vlaady (Nov 22, 2007 9:07 am) If it is a Sport, Limited or Hybrid, you should be fine. These three versions all have an immobilizer. It is only the base where it is optional. |
|
|
Replying to: jsmith1957 (Nov 22, 2007 9:19 am) |
|
|
(3) CMVSS 215 - Bumpers Issue: Canadian standards stipulate an impact to the front or rear of the vehicle at 8 km/h (5 mph) and pendulum impacts on the corner of the vehicle at 4.8 km/h (3 mph). The Canadian test allows for minimal exterior damage as long as there is no damage to or degradation of the performance of the overall vehicle safety systems or vehicle performance. The U.S. standard, by comparison, requires front and rear impacts at 2.5 mph (4.0 km/h) and pendulum corner impacts at 1.5 mph (2.4 km/h) - only half the speed of Canadian tests. The U.S. test permits no damage or permanent deformation of the vehicle, other than cosmetic scratches on bumper covers and sight shields. There is no evidence that bumper standards provide any measure of on-road safety and therefore the standard is simply a damageability requirement that provides no safety benefit. In order for manufacturers to build a vehicle for both the Canadian and U.S. markets, it must be tested to both standards. This increases vehicle development cost and in some cases can and does result in limiting the choice of vehicles for Canadian consumers, particularly when projected Canadian sales volumes do not justify the additional engineering and testing resources to certify to the unique Canadian requirements. As a result the difference in regulatory standards should be eliminated, and given Canada's market size, the U.S. standards should be adopted. (6) Additional list of unique Canadian requirements: CMVSS 101 - Requires metric cluster (speedometer/odometer) and permits/requires ISO symbols CMVSS 108 - Requires Daytime Running Lamps CMVSS 201 - Not as stringent as FMVSS 201 - CMVSS 201 was not amended to adopt the FMVSS Final Rule that was effective September 1, 1998 CMVSS 205 - References ANSI Z26 1996, but allows testing to ANSI Z26 1990 at the manufacturer's option 208CMVSS 210.1 and 210.2 - equivalent to FMVSS 225 - minor differences CMVSS 214 - Does not include dynamic test requirements; however, manufacturers have signed a Memorandum of Understanding which commits us to market vehicles that meet FMVSS 214 and satisfy the OOP Guidelines developed by the Alliance End of exerpt from Report of the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council June 2005 The complete Report can be found at: http://capcinfo.ca/english/reports/report_jun28_05.html#impact A period of two years elapsed between the 2005 and 2007 Reports with not only little progress being made towards harmonization but Transport Canada creating further obstacles to harmonization as evidenced by the intransigence of Transport Canada with their immobilizer standard. Auto manufacturers all attempt to control inventories by regions whether it be Canada or the U.S. The problem is that Canadian taxpayers we are paying for Transport Canada to create barriers that enable the manufacturers to charge Canadians more than an American who may live less than 60 miles from the Canadian Border. The destination charge They were charging a premium when the dollar was below par. Two years ago the US dollar was at C$1.25, now at, say .C.95 an increase in foreign exchange profit for the auto manufacturers. You may be interested in the following articles which appeared in the Globe and Mail: Cars face border roadblock GREG KEENAN From Friday's Globe and Mail November 9, 2007 at 1:05 AM EST http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071109.wrtheft09/BNStory/B- usiness/home/ Exerpts: “- The problem is a Transport Canada regulation that requires 2008 vehicles to have a device that deters car thieves, something known as a theft immobilizer. - “I was going to pay cash,” said Mr. Patterson, a software developer for Research In Motion Ltd. “I had some money stashed away for a rainy day.” - He was also going to save more than $30,000. That's based on a price of $72,290 after a $5,500 rebate in Atlantic City, compared with $102,130 (Canadian) – including options – he figured on paying for the high-end Z06 model in Canada. - The Canadian anti-theft requirement, meanwhile, has auto makers seeing red because they have been pushing Ottawa for years to harmonize our regulations with those south of the border and not introduce standards that apply only in this country. - Some auto makers are not installing the devices in cars built for the U.S. market, are putting them only on selected vehicles, or installing systems that don't meet the Transport Canada standards. (Auto makers say there is no after-market kit for installing the devices that will meet the Canadian regulation.) = Vehicles without the immobilizer systems are banned from importation into Canada by the Registrar of Imported Vehicles, the Transport Canada department that decides which cars and trucks are allowed in. = (By filing with Transport Canada that most of their vehicles are not admissible for importation) GM Canada is simply complying with the Canadian regulation, said spokesman Stew Low. - “The other question is why Transport Canada has chosen to continue a path of unique Canadian standards and not worked to harmonize standards across North America,” Mr. Low said.” - The number of Canadians heading south to buy a car appears to be growing daily, according to the Registrar of Imported Vehicles. Here's a breakdown: Number of Canadians who bought U.S. vehicles last month. 25,000 Estimated number of Canadians who will buy a vehicle in the U.S. this year. 170,000 Previous record for number of Canadians buying U.S. vehicles. 112,000 Estimated number of vehicles purchased in the U.S. that will be new. 40% Number of Canadians calling the registrar per day, looking for information on importing American cars. 5,000 Number of Canadians who called earlier this week, when the dollar hit $1.08 (U.S.) 7,000 Source: Registrar of Imported Vehicles” The Comments which the Globe had included the following: “P Stevens from Toronto, Canada writes: Seems like many here are torn. No one wants to pay more for any product...a few dollars perhaps, but 30 or 40% more NOT A CHANCE. I don't care who you are. Some of the posts here are nationalistic, the -buy-at-home-to-save-jobs types when in fact many of the vehicles you pay that 30-40% premium are made in the USA or offshore. A perfect example is the Toyota Matrix made in Cambridge Ontario...same car here not only costs more for Delivery (660 in USA vs 1200 in Canada) BUT also costs almost 30% more....yet its built right next door to us!!?!?! The balance are those are jealouse of those that have the means to save a buck, made the trip to the USA after doins some research and now are suffering over a standard that is frivilous and does nothing to improve safety, no matter what some of the posters beleive. Think about it if I can't get your car started maybe I break into your house and hurt you for the keys, OR I carjack you, a false sense of security is still a false sense of
|
|
|
The Comments which the Globe had included the following: “P Stevens from Toronto, Canada writes: Seems like many here are torn. No one wants to pay more for any product...a few dollars perhaps, but 30 or 40% more NOT A CHANCE. I don't care who you are. Some of the posts here are nationalistic, the -buy-at-home-to-save-jobs types when in fact many of the vehicles you pay that 30-40% premium are made in the USA or offshore. A perfect example is the Toyota Matrix made in Cambridge Ontario...same car here not only costs more for Delivery (660 in USA vs 1200 in Canada) BUT also costs almost 30% more....yet its built right next door to us!!?!?! The balance are those are jealouse of those that have the means to save a buck, made the trip to the USA after doins some research and now are suffering over a standard that is frivilous and does nothing to improve safety, no matter what some of the posters beleive. Think about it if I can't get your car started maybe I break into your house and hurt you for the keys, OR I carjack you, a false sense of security is still a false sense of security. The idea of Standards is to standardize...why is this so illogicial...many cars sold already have immobilizers, why a special high tech one for Canada that is COSTLY when we have 10-20 million cars on the road WITHOUT an immobilizer, perhaps now the car thieves will steal more older vehicles, impacting the less well off. See no matter how you spin it someone loses with standards that aren't standardized in the world market...and I am not saying that we abandon all standards either, but geeze commons sense says that if I implement a special made in Canada policy it will directly impact future car buyers who want choice and who we already allow to import vehicles.... Basically the government morons that created this standard ensure we lose the right to import any vehicles produced after 2008!?!?!? Give it 10 years and no more vehicle imports from anywhere,perhaps the vehicle manufacturers didn't really push this as they could see the PROFIT on the wall too!! • Posted 20/11/07 at 9:37 AM EST” Buyers of barred cars can drive home, but no farther GREG KEENAN AND STEVEN CHASE November 20, 2007 http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071120.RCARS20/TPStory/?quer- y= Exerpts: “ - Buyers of new vehicles that lack the proper theft immobilization device may now import them, but must park these cars or trucks until Transport Canada finds a permanent solution to the regulatory snafu that prompted the ban. The reprieve may be temporary and the ban put back in place, Transport Canada spokesman Patrick Charette said Monday, but for now Mr. Hill, Mr. Perry and others are allowed to bring their vehicles home. - “But that doesn't solve the issue,” Mr. Charette cautioned. “If their vehicle is not admissible, they will not be able to plate their vehicle and it's not a guarantee that their vehicle will be allowed permanent importation and licensing in Canada.” - Ottawa banned vehicles sold by several manufacturers in the United States because they didn't have theft devices that met a new standard established by Transport Canada for vehicles manufactured after Sept. 1. The ban was rescinded after the Canadian Border Services Agency raised the problem of cars being denied entry to Canada, Mr. Charette said. = Blocking U.S. vehicles because of the theft immobilization devices “is discriminatory to Canadians as it is allowing automobile manufacturers to maintain their high pricing structure for new cars in Canada,” said Mr. Hill, a Calgary financial consultant who bought a 2008 Sienna last month. “This is either collusion or unintended consequences.” - Several auto makers have pointed out that they actually opposed the change in the regulation on theft immobilizers, that discussion of the change first started more than four years ago and that the timing of the new regulation accidentally coincided with the rise in the Canadian dollar. - The list of banned vehicles was broadened last week to include 2008 models manufactured after Sept. 1 and sold in the United States by Ford Motor Co. [F-N], Hyundai Motor Co. and Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd. All 2008 General Motors Corp. [GM-N] models, several Honda Motor Co. Ltd. vehicles and about half of the Toyota Motor Corp. [TM-N] lineup are also affected.” I hope the foregoing has been of help in understanding why Canadians have to pay more when they attempt to purchase a car in Canada.
|
|
|
Hi, For the benefit of the RAV / Highlander group, and other Toyota / Lexus / Scion buyers for that matter, can I suggest again that someone try looking at the technical info site for Toyota? Given that we know some models have a CMVSS compliant immobilizer, it should be possible to compare part numbers and determine if the part is the same across other "non-compliant" models or not. Here's the link: link title Anyone can use the system -- you don't need to be an employee of Toyota. The cost is as follows: Day - $10 US Month - $50 US Year - $350 US Good luck! And if someone is successful in researching this, please share for the benefit of the group and Robert Lamb's "Cars without Borders" organization. |
|
|
Replying to: maluna (Nov 21, 2007 7:57 pm) 2. When leaving the US, you check-in with US export control. They give you the title and check to make sure it matches the car's VIN. 3. You go to Canada Customs and declare that you are importing the vehicle. You go inside, pay your GST, duty and A/C tax, etc. They prepare FORM 1, which is then faxed to RIV. 4. RIV will e-mail, mail or allow you to pick-up FORM 2. To get it e-mailed, you need to call them with your case # (listed on top of FORM 2). 5. With FORM 2 in hand, you get the vehicle inspected at Canadian Tire. They either approve and stamp FORM 2, or let you know what modifications need to be done. If modifications are required, you have to get them done and have the vehicle re-inspected. If the modifications are acceptable, FORM 2 gets stamped and faxed to RIV. 6. With the stamped FORM 2, you go to the Provinical Ministry of Transportation office and get your plate and provincial registration. 7. RIV sends you a sticker to put on the car indicating that it has been imported and all is good. 8. Laugh about how much you have saved... |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: mccreeper (Nov 22, 2007 9:25 am) Price in US: 26100. That is LE + power doors + alloy wheels + mudguards + convinience package. That was a price I got witout negotiating with a dealer. That is price on the road. Dealer went throug all paperwork, but last minute got a call from Toyota US telling them that if they will sell it, then they'll loose licence. Price in Canada: 37000$. That is MSRP: 37225 + 1400(PDI) - 1000(Rebate)-625(dealer discount). 26100 + tax(13%) = 29754 37000+tax(13%) = 42180. Add 1000 expense to get car from US. Event negotite 1000 her less from the deler. Where is my misinformation?
|
|
|
Replying to: freshtunes (Nov 21, 2007 11:31 pm) But when I ran the numbers I found, as freshtunes indicated, that the comparison was based on US MSRP vs. a Canadian very hard bargaining deal. The real cash price in the US would have been lower with some bargaining. If you suceeded in getting only $1,000 off the MSRP of $26,733 in the US, after excise tax, PST and GST the comparative price would have been $1,200 less so the savings would have been $3,200. If you could beat the US dealer down by $2,000, the savings would have been $4,400.
|
|
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
