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
|
I hope those of you who have e-mailed any Member of the Government including but not limited to the Transport Minister or Mr. Davis of Transport Canada and have stated that you are in agreement with the proposed amendment with respect to CMVSS114 or are considering the proposed Amendment will consider your position after reading the following: I believe that the amendment appears to have be drafted with the interests of the the auto manufacturers as the primary purpose. Of course those with “a car with no country” will be taken care of. It is within the power of the Government of Canada to correct their mistake immediately and not have the people with “a car with no country” waiting for weeks or maybe months depending on the lobbying effort mounted by the various stakeholders. The proposed Amendment is a quick fix to placate those who have created this website and get relief for Transport Canada from thousands of irate Canadians. These people were simply seeking what was their right in the first place. I believe that unless political pressure is brought to bear on the Government, Transport Canada and the automakers will have the status quo notwithstanding the proposed Amendment being adopted. In my humble opinion,this is not acceptable as: The average Canadian is not going to import a motor vehicle. Most will be looking to be provided with delivery and financing at a Canadian dealership near their home. However, the proposed Amendment does not provide Canadian dealers with access to the U.S. vehicles with immobilizers to a US standard. They will have vehicles that are priced to what the closed Canadian market will bear so anyone who wants to purchase in Canada will pay the higher Canadian price. Dealers will not bring cars into Canada if they have to buy them at the “retail level” as stated in the proposed Amendment. This is unfair to those Canadians who wish to purchase locally and to the dealers of Canada. Manufacturers preventing their US dealers from selling new 2008 vehicles to Canadians makes the change in the immobilizer standard irrelevant excepting for those who had already bought vehicles and could not license them because of Transport Canada changing the rules. The proposed Amendment by Transport Canada giving Canadians the right to import vehicles with immobilizers to the US standard will be of little benefit if the manufacturers will not allow them to buy the cars. This is an example of one Canadian’s experience: “I saw your post on Corvette Forum. In October of 2007 I purchased a new vehicle from a GM dealer in Tennessee. I was dealing with the owner of the dealership and he knew I was Canadian and from Canada. I paid for the vehicle via bank draft which was cashed and I arranged transport for the vehicle. I was then told by the dealer that the local GM Representative advised him that it was against GM policy to sell to Canadians and he was forced by GM to refund my money. I have a bill of sale, a copy of the bank draft, and a copy of the dealership check for the refund that GM forced him to pay.” The proposed amendment: Para. (4.1) “that has been sold at the retail level in the United States and” raises a few questions: 1. Does the word “retail” prevent the purchase of a new or used vehicle from: a. an individual in the United States b. a wholesaler in the United States? c. an wholesale auction in the United States? (e.g. dealer auctions like Manheim / Adessa or Great Lakes Auction) d. a retail auction in the United States? (like Barrett-Jackson or the many other auctions where new and used vehicles are auctioned to individuals) e. a franchised dealer of an auto company in the United States who is willing to sell for less than MSRP or on a wholesale basis 2. Notwithstanding the Sherman Act (anti-competition) in the United States, what impact does the amendment have on the conduct of the manufacturer who does business in Canada with respect to coercing or contractually obligating their dealers in the United States to not sell new cars to Canadians. If this is the case, any requirement for a sale “at retail” would not permit an individual from purchasing a new car from a U.S. dealer. What do we expect Transport Canada to do to rectify this situation…turn it over to the Canadian Competition Board? 3. Does “at the retail level” restrict a Canadian dealer who wants to import new or used vehicles from the US for sale to his customers. Most Canadians will not go to the U.S. to import a car as they have heard about the nightmare of those with “cars without a country” and many simply do not want to take the effort, have the financial resources and accordingly would prefer the convenience of having a Canadian dealer do it all for them. Some dealers have been offering this service to their customers who want or have found used cars in the US. Regulations should not penalize the dealers. Dealers should, if there is any benefit to importing new or used vehicles, be able to benefit from it and pass at least part of the benefit on to their customers. Proposed Amendment sponsored by Transport Canada: REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (IMPORTATION OF VEHICLES - SECTION 12) AMENDMENT 1. Section 12 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (see footnote 11) is amended by adding the following after subsection (4): (4.1) For the purposes of subsection 7(2) of the Act, a vehicle that has been sold at the retail level in the United States and that has not been certified by the manufacturer as conforming to subsection 114(4) of Schedule IV to these Regulations may be imported into Canada despite not being certified to conform to subsection 114(4) if (a) the vehicle was fitted at the time of manufacture with an electronic immobilization system; or (b) unless the manufacturer has indicated in writing that the vehicle cannot be fitted with an immobilization system, the person importing the vehicle states in their declaration that the vehicle (i) will be fitted with an immobilization system that conforms to National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, entitled Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May 1998), published by the Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada, before it is presented for registration under the laws of a province, and (ii) will be taken, within 45 days after its importation, to an inspection station authorized by the registrar of imported vehicles to carry out an inspection function to determine that the vehicle has been made to conform to the standard. If you have not already read it, you may be interested in the following which appeared on the www.carswithoutborders.com website: “I am happy to announce that I think we are flying to Michigan to pick up our truck next week. All of this hoopla is regarding an immobilizer device. We had the US dealer check our truck and give us that part number. For the GMC Sierra 2500HD Duramax t
|
|
|
“I am happy to announce that I think we are flying to Michigan to pick up our truck next week. All of this hoopla is regarding an immobilizer device. We had the US dealer check our truck and give us that part number. For the GMC Sierra 2500HD Duramax the part #15845229 in case anyone needs to know. I have called my General Mortors dealership here in Canada, St Albert to be exact and they have confirmed that it is the same part number of the device here that is on its Canadian version of the truck. Just to be sure that ours has the CSA approval, we are going to have the $200 part reinstalled on our truck, even though its the same one thats already on there. Just to proove Transport Canada that they are liars, and that they are not admitting my truck because of other reasons. How can they deny my truck if it’s got the part installed by a certified dealership? I will remortgage my house to hire a lawyer to sue the government if they do, because I have complied with every single thing they asked. From http://www.carswithoutborders.com/2007/11/29/gms-stance-on-anti-theft-devices-al- l-smoke-and-mirrors/#more-93 There are posts on www.carswithoutborders.com which deal with the long history of exploitation of the Canadian car buyer by the manufacturers aided and abetted by Transport Canada. The links to these comments are at: http://www.carswithoutborders.com/get-involved/#comment-95 and http://www.carswithoutborders.com/get-involved/#comment-144 It concerns me that our submissions are to be made to Transport Canada. I do not believe that Transport Canada is an impartial arbiter in this case. I believe that in these type of situations, those with a past history relative to the matter have an interest in seeing the status quo prevail. Someone outside Transport Canada, such as a judge should accept and scrutinize the suggestions and recommendations of those with an interest in this matter. The judge could ask for third party assistance if required. This not only applies to this proposed amendment but to the whole Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard which after five years of effort by the auto manufacturers has not been harmonized with the U.S. despite strong support for adoption of the position of the Canadiand Automotive Parnership Council (”CAPC”). Given the cost to the Canadian public of the existing Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which result in non-tariff trade barriers, a judicial enquiry is justified. Unless there is complete harmonization, the bureaucrats at Transport Canada and the auto manufacturers are going to be able to continue to play the misinformation game with the consumer and the higher prices will remain in effect in Canada. How many more times will Canadians be disadvantage by their dealings with Transport Canada over these standards that should have been harmonized several years ago. There is alot more than the immobilizer issue at stake. Please review the coments of the CAPC as set out below. I believe that you will conclude that the Canadian public is not being provided with a greater level of safety than the U.S. standard would provide. Why has Transport Canada not dealt with the harmonization issue in a timely manner. |
|
|
ORIGINS OF HARMONIZATION Since 2002, Transport Canada bureaucrats appear to have scuttled motor vehicle regulation harmonization with the US. NAFTA harmonization of motor vehicle regulations between Canada and the U.S. was an initiative that was started by former Transport Minister Allan Rock in June 2002 by the formation of the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council (”CAPC”). CAPC consists of the stakeholders in the harmonization process including Transport Canada and motor vehicle manufacturers. WHAT TRANSPORT CANADA HAS DONE TO PREVENT HARMONIZATION FROM OCCURRING - RESULT - HIGHER CANADIAN CAR PRICES Excerpts from: Canadian Automotive Partnership Council Regulatory Harmonization Working Group In the May 4, 2007 Report referred to below, it was stated that “No regulations have been harmonized since the last CAPC meeting.” (1) Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (”CMVSS”) 208 - Frontal impact occupant protection standards May 4, 2007 Report - Canada has not demonstrated that there is a field problem with the current occupant protection systems. With a non-harmonized regulation, Canada risks foregoing the benefits of U.S. advanced systems or compelling more expensive unique Canadian variants of vehicles, or both. - TC has hired a U.S. academic to conduct additional cost benefit analysis and risk analysis. - Revised proposals continue to seek unique Canadian requirements, so this issue is coded yellow - It has been seven years since FMVSS 208 was finalized and TC still has not completed its analysis. June 2005 Report - 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. - 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 approximately 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. (2) CMVSS 215 - Bumpers May 4, 2007 Report - Canada has unique bumper requirements (damageability) and is not currently planning to harmonize this standard. - This requirement has precluded products from the Canadian market; these are generally low volume or cost sensitive products. June 2005 Report - There is no evidence that (ed. Canadian motor vehicle) 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. - 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. (3) CMVSS 114 Immobilizer May 4, 2007 Report - The regulation contains performance requirements for which there is no test method or procedure to demonstrate compliance, contrary to government policy. - TC without the knowledge of the Canadian industry proposed a revision to an ECE regulation (which was rejected) and TC added the new requirements to the final regulation in a manner inconsistent with regulatory process requirements. June 2005 Report - Most new vehicles sold in Canada are currently equipped with immobilizers, which can shut the vehicle down or prevent the vehicle from operating if the ignition is by-passed. These immobilizers meet the level of performance required by Transport Canada, and it is felt that most of those vehicles currently not equipped will either soon be so-equipped or those models will be discontinued. In spite of this situation and extensive discussions towards an MOU (ed. Memorandum of Understanding), Transport Canada has amended the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations to require immobilizers (ed.to Transport Canada standard) on all new vehicles under 4 356 kg gross vehicle weight, starting with the 2008 model year (effective September 1, 2007). (4) Self Certification May 4, 2007 Report - Transport Canada’s (TC) discussion paper on proposed revisions to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (MSVA) would have the effect of restricting the automotive manufacturers’ ability to certify vehicles using available tools including advanced, state of the art, computerized techniques (correlated to physical tests) and engineering judgment. TC is attempting to prescribe how manufacturers certify their vehicles under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act in order to make compliance audits easier. The use of advanced methods to support certification speeds the implementation of advanced technologies and supports robust testing and compliance. - TC, to date, has not indicated a change in its position on this issue or timeframe for its resolution. (5) Emissions Monitoring and Reporting May 4, 2007 Report - The federal government is currently developing a GHG reporting system which may not be harmonized with the Ontario system. - Environment Canada has proposed additional reporting obligations for process level emissions of Criteria Air Contaminants beyond those required of U.S. facilities. June 2005 Report - Current Canadian regulations require that new vehicles be certified to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 2 e |
|
|
(5) Emissions Monitoring and Reporting May 4, 2007 Report - The federal government is currently developing a GHG reporting system which may not be harmonized with the Ontario system. - Environment Canada has proposed additional reporting obligations for process level emissions of Criteria Air Contaminants beyond those required of U.S. facilities. June 2005 Report - Current Canadian regulations require that new vehicles be certified to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 2 emission standards.These Tier 2 standards are the most stringent emissions standards in the world. Through a phase in process that will be completed by 2009, both cars and light trucks, including Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs), will be grouped for the first time into a common set of emissions requirements. Meeting these emission standards represents a challenge to reducing fuel consumption, and as a result reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions which are directly related to the amount of fuel consumed. Consumption reducing technologies such as direct injection compression ignition (diesel) and direct injection (gasoline) engines are challenged by tight emissions standards. However, even with the introduction of new technologies and the common process with the U.S., Canada’s ability to meet these requirements is still severely challenged because of differing fuel quality. Under the Tier 2 program, the in-use performance of emission control systems must be maintained for the useful life of the vehicle or 190,000 kilometers. Attaining this long life requirement is highly dependant on fuel quality, which in Canada, has been compromised by the addition of manganese-based fuel additives in most consumer purchased fuel. In general, fuel suppliers have temporarily suspended the use of manganese-based additives in gasoline refining pending the outcome of the Government’s independent scientific third party review. Unfortunately this review continues to be delayed by the government and seriously risks the re-introduction of this metal-based fuel additive. Key Recommendations: - Continued harmonization of fuel economy targets between Canada and the US remain a high priority in order to ensure Canadians benefit from the economies of scale associated with harmonized automotive product and the resulting technology and cost benefits associated. - Maintain consistent fuel economy standards between Canada and the US. Ensure Canadian CAFC remains a voluntary program with targets that are fully harmonized with US CAFÉ. - Ensure implementation of harmonized vehicle emissions standards does not lead to costly duplication of in-use vehicle emissions compliance testing in Canada. (6) Additional list of unique Canadian requirements: June 2005 Report - 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 Transport Canada requires Canadians to make certain modifications to certain admissable vehicles imported from the U.S.. For example, Transport Canada requires certain vehicles to have the U.S. foam bumper absorber to be replaced notwithstanding the U.S. bumper absorber meeting the FMVSS as set out below (including a comparison with the Canadian standard). The foregoing are excerpts from: Canadian Automotive Partnership Council Regulatory Harmonization Working Group Progress Report - May 4, 2007 http://capcinfo.ca/english/reports/documents/2007/RegHarmon_e.pdf and Vehicle Manufacturers in the North American Environment Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Canadian Automotive Partnership Council June 2005 http://capcinfo.ca/english/reports/report_jun28_05.html#impact |
|
|
Transport Canada requires a Recall Letter for admissable vehicles imported from the U.S. The manufacturers or dealers charge for a Recall Letter ranges from approximately $27.50 for a GM product to $500.00 for a BMW to $5,000.00 for a Ferrari. Canadian citizens are placed in an untenable situation because of Transport Canada in that the vehicle manufacturer can elect to refuse to provide a recall letter at any price. What recourse does an owner of such a manufacturers vehicle have when a recall letter is denied by the manufacturer? The harmonization of Canadian motor vehicle safety standards with those of the U.S. should contribute to having safer, more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly cars because people having a fixed dollar amount to spend on a vehicle will get a newer vehicle with the same dollars as harmonization would reduced motor vehicle prices in Canada. Many Canadians are aware of the excessive premiums over U.S. prices being charged in Canada for motor vehicles. Over the past few weeks, tt seems that each nightly TV news program features Minister Cannon or people with importation problems. These problems would not exist is there was harmonization. Does Transport Canada not recognize the terms of NAFTA? Transport Canada has created non-tariff trade barriers that limit the ability of Canadians to buy less costly vehicles in the U.S. Until the safety standards are harmonized with the U.S. Canadians will have to deal with issues that should not be issues. The requirement for the motor vehicle manufacturers to comply as of September 1, 2007 with an immobilizer standard unique to Canada is the main reason for the large number of 2008 U.S. models being inadmissible to Canada. If total harmonization was realized, Canadians could then purchase the vehicle which they want, whether it be in Canada or the U.S. There would be no changing admissibility list of Transport Canada. Subject to the U.S. Department of Justice dealing with the auto manufacturers with respect to their practices of denying their dealers the right to sell to Canadians, Canadians should have the right to purchase any 2008 motor vehicle in the U.S. without any modification(s) (as is presently the case with some vehicles). Examples of motor vehicle price differences between Canada and the United States from: http://www.ataleoftwoprices.com: 2008 Toyota Camry - 25% to 35% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim 2008 Chevrolet Impala - 16% to 27% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim 2008 Ford Mustang - 21% to 33% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim 2008 Ford Taurus - 34% to 38% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim 2008 Chrysler PT Cruiser - 36% to 41% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim 2008 Honda Civic - 15% to 27% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim. 2008 Lexus LS - 40% to 42% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim 2008 BMW 5 Series - 36% to 43% more in Canada than U.S. depending on trim Consider asking your MP for complete harmonization. |
|
|
Replying to: mdbuffy (Dec 02, 2007 9:02 pm) You make a lot of valid points and appear to share the view that we will never truly have an equal playing field and fair prices in Canada until we tear down all of the barriers that prevent a true free trade of vehicles across our borders. You've touched on a number of known barriers in your posts among many including lack of harmonization, problems getting warranties, recall letters, letters of compliance, willing dealers, etc..., etc... There are many battles to be fought on each of these fronts but right now we are in the midst of fighting this fire that is raging that has essentially brought trade to a halt regarding the importation of new model-year vehicles into Canada. The proposed amendment to CMVSS114 would not only put this fire out for those who've already purchased these vehicles but for anyone who wishes to purchase these vehicles in the future. Any attempt to broaden the scope of the proposed amendment is likely to lead to extended consultaion periods that would not serve the public well. You can bet that the OEMs would like nothing more than for this amendment to be shelved in order to consider new proposals. Anything to extend the status quo benefits the OEMs at the detriment of canadian consumers. This proposed amendment is intentionally targeted to put out this one fire. Let's support it and mobilize for the next battle. Remember that wars are won a single battle at a time ... netdog |
|
|
As I have dealt with the legalities of the bureaucracy of the Federal Government previously, I am concerned that technicalities administered by the bureaucrats who are handling our recommendations may make the representations of some people invalid. Some of the questions that I have are outlined below. Personally, I am going to keep in touch with as many politicans who will listen to me as they need our votes and our financial support in the next election. I will as a formality express my concern vis Mr. Davis about the proposed Amendment and the failure of Transport Canada to harmonize safety standards notwithstanding that they have had five years to do so. Will an e-mail submission be treated as a representation in writing? I can tell you from my own costly experience that the bureaucrats interpretation of the date (whether it is "until" or "within" or "after") and / or what wasn't said in the request can disqualify a representation. They will disqualify your representation if it is in their interest. What date must the representation be presented by...does that mean it must arrive in written form (as required) by mail in Mr. Davis' office before that date? As far as I can tell, FMVSS114 is not what has been imposed on us by CFMVSS114. I was told that CMVSS114 came about because of pressure from bureaucrats from Manitoba Provincial Insurance Corporation ("MPIC") . MPIC have been forcing Manitobans with certain vehicles to put in immobilizers (that are those that are stolen most often because the punks have learned how to defeat the factory installed immobilizer or a vehicle without an immobilizer) under thread of withdrawl of license. More heavy handed government behavior. What's any different in Liberty City, FL where it's as tough as it gets. The Manitoba punks would be eaten for breakfast in Liberty City. Why does an entire nation have to put in immobilizers when there are perhaps 50 or 100 punks (from Press reports or police comments) in Winnipeg some with FAS (who should be treated in institutions and not jails) who are responsible for 95% of the stolen cars in Winnipeg. Someone at MPIC has been on a crusade for immobilizers and as they are paid by the taxpayers they have all the time in the world to pursue their crusade. There is citizen opposition to the heavy handed tactics of MPIC. This will cost their NDP government votes from what I am told. The root cause of all this BS is the failure of the politicians to write laws which have the ability to allow the courts little leeway in punishing these punks. Instead they just make us pay and pay and pay. An immobilizer today, maybe they will require us to have anti-carjacing devices tomorrow. We are the quiet majority that allows this to happen. Yes, the U.S. does have what they consider to be an immobilizer, but the requirements do not appear to be as specific as is the Canadian case where our Government has spent countless millions of dollars coming up with a specification (I can't remember the ULC or whatever. The auto industry in the US has already addressed the immobilizer issue but it is not good enough for those we pay for at Transport Canada. I guess the have to put the "Canadian, eh" stamp of approval on it at Transport Canada. From: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles.../TP-114-01.pdf GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FMVSS 114 specifies requirements primarily for theft protection to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from unauthorized operation of a vehicle. It also specifies requirements to reduce the incidents of crashes resulting from the rollaway of parked vehicles with automatic transmissions as a result of children moving the shift mechanism out of the “park” position. This standard applies to passenger cars, and trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles having a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 4536 kilograms or less. It does not apply to walk-in van-type vehicles. Each vehicle shall have: A. A key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent the normal activation of the vehicle's engine and either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. B. A warning to the driver activated whenever the key to the key-locking system has been left in the locking system and the driver's door is opened. Additional requirements for vehicles with automatic transmissions include: C. The key-locking system, in those vehicles with an automatic transmission which has a “park” position, shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in “park” or becomes locked in “park” as the direct result of removing the key. D. Vehicles shall not move more than 150mm on a 10% grade when the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in “park”. E. Except when a vehicle is in “park”, the means for deactivating the vehicle’s engine shall not activate any device installed to prevent the vehicle’s steering or forward self-mobility or both. Optional devices for vehicles with automatic transmissions include: F. Vehicles may permit key removal when electrical failure of this system (including battery discharge) occurs or may have a device which, when activated, permits key removal provided that, in either case, steering is prevented upon key removal. G. Vehicles may also have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from “park” after the key has been removed provided that steering is prevented. The further formal update of the regulations which came into effect on Sept 1/07 is as per the following is an excerpt from Page 17752 of the 2006 Federal Register S5.1.1 Each vehicle must have a starting system which, whenever the key is removed from the starting system prevents: (a) The normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) Either steering, or forward selfmobility, of the vehicle, or both. S5.1.2 For each vehicle type manufactured by a manufacturer, the manufacturer must provide at least 1,000 unique key combinations, or a number equal to the total number of the vehicles of that type manufactured by the manufacturer, whichever is less. The same combinations may be used for more than one vehicle type. S5.1.3 Except as specified below, an audible warning to the vehicle operator must be activated whenever the key is in the starting system and the door located closest to the driver's designated seating position is opened. An audible warning to the vehicle operator need not activate: (a) After the key has been inserted into the starting system, and before the driver takes further action; or (b) If the key is in the starting system in a manner or position that allows the engine or motor to be started or to continue operating; or (c) For mechanical keys and starting systems, after the key has been withdrawn to a position from which it may not be turned. S5.1.4 If a vehicle is equipped with a transmission with a ''park'' position, the mean |
|
|
|
|
I note that some vehicles sourced out of the US can have their odometers and electronic displays changed to metric by programming for the display. Is it possible for the display in miles, mpg etc. be programmed to read in km, l/100 km etc without having to swap out any electronic component. I realize that the speed display can be toggled from miles/hr to km/hr and reverse. If the odometer can be changed from miles to km I am looking to not interfere with the reliability of the odometer as a measure of the mileage of the vehicle. Also can the DRL be programmed to function or can it also be done by inserting a fuse?
|
|
See Audi Canada's news release. The beginning of a trend?
|
|
|
Well, it's a bit of an overstatement but the truth is that http://www.carswithoutborders.com/get-involved/join-the-petition/ has a petition for the Minister of Transport that could lead to harmonization of Motor Vehicle Regulations with the U.S. Lower cars prices could result. Your taking the time to fill out your name, city, province and e-mail on would enable the members of carswithoutborders to add your name to the petition. Please help change your standard of living...get a better car for the same amount that you now pay for a lesser car. |
|
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
