Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
This is not confirmed, but I heared a rumor that this week Transport Canada will anounce that if you add "Canadian" Immobilizer to your post September 1st build car, you'll be allowed to import it. I know that this is just a rumor, and not confirmed, but I believe there is a hope for many of you. Lets see what is going to happen in the next few days.
Myself, I had my heart set on getting the 08 Odyssey from the US. I also have a dealers ready to sell one to me, however, until I explicitly see "2008 Odyssey" listed in the admissible column under Section 5.3... I think it would be foolish to try and gamble with the "system" as clearly from others in this thread, they are getting shafted even after performing due-diligence to follow the rules.
In fact this has made the most amount of sense to me to deal with this issue today and for the few years to come.
As I have stated previously, the immobilizers should be allowed to be installed like DRL's to bring the vehicle into compliance. Especially since the immobilizer does not constitute a safety hazard for me or the other motorists.
It confounds me to think a vehicle like the Odyssey (of which I am hoping to get) is inadmissible due to "safety" issues. Sheesh... it's a MINIVAN that has more airbags and seat belts, tethers, stability assist features, ABS, tire pressure monitoring, and the list goes on, than most other vehicles. "Unsafe". Bah.
Pardon the long message but I've got a lot to get off my chest.
I checked this forum frequently before I set off on my importation project, and found it very useful.
As I describe my situation, I'll keep things only as specific as necessary (Oliver Stone should be looking into this fiasco for his next movie!!):
I followed all prescribed procedures set out by Transport Canada (TC), Registrar of Imported Vehicles (RIV) and US Customs and Border Patrol (USCBP) to buy a vehicle in the US for importation into Canada. At the time I purchased the vehicle (2008 Maxima) on Nov. 5, it was indicated as Admissible on TC's LIST OF VEHICLES ADMISSIBLE FROM THE UNITED STATES (LVAFUS). I was not able to export the vehicle because I arrived a day early at the border (USBCP requires all documentation at least 3 days before export). The vehicle is currently in storage on the US side. When I got home on Friday, I checked LVAFUS and found to my horror that the 08 Maxima was now listed as Inadmissible. Therefore, my plans to bring the vehicle over on Tuesday are now on hold, and I don't want to export from US until I know I can bring it into Canada and register it (i.e. pass the RIV inspection). I will call RIV on Monday but from what I can see, I don't expect much in the way of a response, especially one that is reliable. I also plan to contact my MP.
From the posts on this forum, apparently, others in my position have been able to obtain an exemption/exception or amnesty letter from RIV which allowed them to bring their vehicles into Canada. Apparently, RIV has stopped issuing those letters. Apparently, also, TC is meant to make some announcement on the whole importing thing this coming Tuesday, and the rumour is that it will not be good news for importers.
I have sent an email summarizing my situation to the law firm of Juroviesky & Ricci LLP (http://www.jruslaw.com) which is the firm that has launched the Class Action against manufacturers, and dealers for price-fixing. I will probably retain them to launch legal action against RIV and TC if those agencies don't use common sense and let vehicles be admitted as per the rules in place at the time they were purchased.
I'm sure many of you would join in that. Not only do we have the potential to suffer financial losses in the tens of thousands of dollars, there is also the mental pain and suffering from being put in this position.
With regards to the Vehicle Immobilzation System (VIS) issue, the 08 Maxima has one built-in, and for sure (I assume), it would meet the INTENT of CMVSS 114. This is corroborated in the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) list that someone on this forum referred to. Also, the VIS only becomes an issue at the time of the RIV inspection at Canadian Tire, it should not be an issue at the border to cause the vehicle not to be admitted. However, why would you import a vehicle that cannot pass the inspection.
As I continue to think about this, I wonder (fume):
- why does not RIV have a pre-clearance mechanism where we tell them all about the car we WANT TO import and they say Yes - no mods, Yes - with mods, or No. Why do we have to buy the car and bring it to the border and then even get it in only to fail the inspection. Of course, isn't that what the VAFUS list is for??
- with the continuous changes the VAFUS list, any 10 year old would realize that may be they should have a page where they summarize the changes from one version to the next.
- there a ton of text on the RIV web-site and the VAFUS list that talks of assisting Canadians with importing. Well, they better start following that or it will be a field day for legal action against them.
There is still one day left to write your thoughts to Minister Cannon - and your MP and the opposition parties. Minister Lawrence Cannon e-mail mintc@tc.gc.ca -
I hear that he called in his key staff last week and said he wanted this fixed. So write to be sure they fix it the right way.
And yes, I will write to the Montreal Gazette journalist.
I have a friend who works at a Toyota store and she called me on Oct 31st to tell me that they had a meeting and the GM happily pronounced that there would be no more U.S. cars coming across because they do not meet standards and cannot be made by any means to meet the standards. She said it was a memo produced and distributed from Toyota Canada. It was too late for me to do anything but I also thought it would be no big deal to install an aftermarket solution that meant the "intent" - I didn't think Toyota could tell Transport that there is no after market solution and that they'd eat it up. Stupid Me!
Well my plans have me hitting the border saturday wth an 08/2007 Rogue and still very scared. Wish me luck
If you don't have money to buy a car in the US, you would have even less money to buy it Canada. I don't know your financials but there should be a way for you to buy a car that meets your needs and find bank financing - I saw CarSourceCanada.com that seems to be an importer and could probably help. Anyway we see a lot of brand new car buying here ; Cadillacs, Acuras etc. but buying in the US is also a good solution for used vehicles and you wouldn't have all this Immobilizer Problem. Maybe a few can post good straight stories of used car purchases that were done and that were easy and saved a lot of money.
To Sam Hill MP,
I have been following with interest the situation of the large price discrepancy of manufactured goods between the Canadian and US markets that has resulted due to the increase in value of the Looney against the US dollar. In particular, I have been monitoring the underhanded methods the auto manufacturers have tried to use to maintain this large price differential to the detriment of Canadian citizens.
First it was forbidding their US franchises to sell to Canadians (I thought discrimination was outlawed years ago); then it was making sure that potential buyers understood that the warranty would not be honoured if the automobile crossed the border, then it was refusing to issue letters on the recall status of the vehicle (something required by Canada’s RIV; Registrar of Imported Vehicles).
But, in my opinion, now they have definitely crossed the line. Apparently there are some subtle differences between the US and Canadian standards for immobilizers (note: these are security devices, NOT safety devices). Some manufacturers are claiming that the cars they manufacture for the US market do not meet the Canadian standard, and have convinced RIV (possibly involving Transport Canada) to disallow their US marketed vehicles to be imported into Canada.
I appreciate that the Canadian Government set up RIV in the first place to streamline the process of importing automobiles from the US, however I believe they need to make the process work for Canadians and not the foreign manufacturers:
1. Eliminate any requirements that the manufacturers can use to block the process, or legislate the Canadian divisions of the manufacturers to co-operate with the process. I am speaking of the fact that the manufacturers are using the “recall clearance letter” requirement as a method of blocking the process.
2. If there are differences between US and Canadian standards, allow the buyer to bring the imported car up to the Canadian standard, and not just remove the vehicle from the importable automobile list.
I would appreciate hearing your position on this.
Thanks.
However, check this out: I called some dealerships in the other part of the US. They had not received any such thing and in fact were willing to sell me a vehicle, provided I did not finance it! It seems that only the bordering states are receiving these letters from BMW Headquarters.
So can I a copy of your list to back up my arguement??
Thanks
Thank you
I quess I'm thinking "if they can do it, why can't I ?"
Which could lead someone to suspect that foul play was involved.
Many folks just looked once and made their decision. I don't think it is fair to expect them to go thru the process with a Portable computer hitting refresh every 30 seconds to see if the car is still on the list!!
Think of all the wasted time , effort and money,,, not to mention the disruption on the families...
Transport Canada should do the right thing and just grandfather the folks that got caught up in this issue!
http://www.mastergard.com/
They will explain how everything works to get an immobilizer installed after you have imported your vehicle.
Ask about Toyota Warranties, costs, where you can get it done etc.
They are very helpful.
What vehicle do you want to purchase.
My secure address is:
retiredtom@live.ca
I am sending out immediately to as many politicans as I can.
Everyone should do this so that we can get our voice heard and stop this bullying by the automakers.
Website for MEMBERS email address is
http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePerio- - d=Current&Language=E
If you would like a copy of the letter email me at retiredtom@live.ca
and I will forwardas all email address are included
Just for your reference, I was told by Towne BMW in Buffalo, New York that they have been given strict instructions not to sell to Canadians.
I have no idea why a US-origin car would be worth less. The only thing I would question is that when it comes to re-sale, will it get certified the same way? That may depend on who's certifying it. Perhaps the dealer would mark it lower value since it was imported? However, I'm not sure why this is even a debate - as you know the orgin of BMWs, accept for the X3 and another model, is GERMANY. So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.....
Send me your email and I'll scan and email you the Oct. 26/07 VAFUS list to you. I only have the intro. pages and the Section 3 page that covers Nissan. I'm expecting contact info. of someone who has pdf's of all the lists.
I just got off the phone with RIV. The agent acknowledged many people are caught in this situation but he would not "speculate" on what the Transport Canada announcement will be which is expected "sometime" this week (previously, I thought it was on Tuesday). We all definitely need to lobby TC and our MP on Tuesday. I asked RIV to research the proper contact at TC. The agent said he would recommend this to his Supervisor.
Just my 2 cents worth....
Admittedly, this whole 2008 import fiasco is pretty volatile right now. Hopefully by February, when you decide to go get your EXT, all the “bugs” will be worked out of the system and final decisions and manufacturer submissions on admissibility/inadmissibility are made.
Cheers.
I'm still getting the processing line. I have a feeling I'm being put off.
This whole thing sucks!
haha, so true. However, if you have the time, I’ve figured out how to identify the changes from revision to revision. You need Acrobat (not Reader) and Word.
1. convert the 2 VAFUS lists that you want to compare in Acrobat (again, not Reader)
2. save each one as a Word document
3. open the superseded list in Word
4. use the “Tools>Compare and Merge Documents...” function
5. select and open the newer list (I uncheck the “Find Formatting”)
6. voila, the additions are shown in green. The deletions are commented on the side.
Cheers.
I would greatly appreciate this
Thanks
poobar54@hotmail.com
When the requirement was gazetted in 2005, the government made this statement,
Mandating the installation of immobilization systems is expected to improve road safety by reducing vehicle theft, especially theft involving young offenders.
More than you will ever want to read about the rational for the new regulation can be found by clicking here
Thx Bean
(7) Effective September 1, 2007, every vehicle, except an emergency vehicle, shall be equipped with an immobilization system
And as you can tell from this board it is almost impossible to get a vehicle on our roads that are not in compliance. For example, go the the Honda Civic specifications and under their Safety section you will see Immobilizer Theft-Deterrent System a standard item for all trim levels.
Anti-theft immobilization devices are systems that assist in preventing the unauthorized use of a vehicle. Such a device, when armed, prevents the activation of a control unit, such as the engine control unit, the fuel control unit or the ignition control unit. In order to disarm the system, a coded key, a keypad or a remote device is required
...the Department estimated that over 80 percent of new Canadian vehicles offered for sale were already equipped with immobilization systems meeting one of the two proposed immobilization standards. As fewer than 20 percent of new vehicles would have been affected, the Department expected that the industry would be willing to agree to 100 percent implementation on a voluntary basis, given a two-year lead time.
Based on the results of the Project 6116 study, the Department began negotiations in early 2002 with vehicle manufacturers; however, negotiations failed due to the reluctance of some manufacturers to agree to the proposed requirements. Consequently, the Department had no alternative but to mandate the installation of an immobilization system.
Called today and was instructed yet again that it takes them 2 -3 business days to process.
I guess I'm up again for a sleepless night.