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: 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. |
|
|
Replying to: caramel (Dec 02, 2007 10:04 pm) Gee, if the internet was regulated maybe we wouldn't find these deals. Please take the time to fill out the four fields in the petition at http://www.carswithoutborders.com/get-involved/join-the-petition/ link title
|
|
|
Replying to: mdbuffy (Dec 02, 2007 10:30 pm) Prior to this announcement our price was + $7,870 or 30% more. After the announced reduction our price is + $6,370 or still 25% more. No big deal! I'm waiting until the Trumpeter Swans return. |
|
To: pm pm.gc.ca Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 10:03 AM Subject: Canadians importing U.S. vehicles, I recently purchased a Toyota Tacoma and have been unable to plate the truck here in Canada. I would like to ask you and your staff why? The standard (cmvss) 114 doesn’t exist. Underwriters laboratories have had that standard on hold for the last 2 years. I recently emailed a copy of my owners manual showing the immobilizer specifications as published by the manufacture to Pierre Tramblay. I have not heard back from him as of yet and probably will not. I also would like to know why and how the local dealer can sell imported "sub- standard" products to the general Canadian public i.e. Tacoma’s like mine. Tacoma trucks are made in only one facility that produces approximately 1000 unites a day. They are shipped to Canada and the USA. There are no part changes in regards to the ignition immobilizer system. I went down to the local dealer and asked to see the manual for a Tacoma that was built after Sept 1 2007. It should have this (cmvss)114 listed in its manual. Instead it was listed as RSS-210. Exactly the same as my inadmissible vehicle. "Our government is committed to ensuring safety on Canadian roads and highways," said the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. "This amendment will simplify and clarify the process for Canadians importing U.S. vehicles, to ensure those vehicles meet our requirements with respect to anti-theft immobilizers." What about the dealers?????? Who is watching what the dealers import and sell here. So far I believe that the Canadian government doesn’t have a clue as to what the dealers are doing. Just put the fox in the hen house and see what happens!! The shame of it all is. I think that you and your government don’t care!!!! Ps. I put little faith in the fact that. I will hear from you in regards to this Conservative travesty…
|
|
|
This message may go on twice, as my computer is malfunctioning. A dealer is Buffalo just called; he has a Sienna XLE, 2007, silver, with less than 600 miles on it. He is asking $26,900. We've already bought, otherwise we'd take it. If you want his name and number, e-mail me at sassmuskoka yahoo.ca.
|
|
|
Replying to: radar349 (Nov 29, 2007 6:46 am) |
|
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
