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
Sorry to hear about your misfortune and really hope you will get a favorable resolution in the very near future. Did the RIV indicate that their moratorium applied to all 2008 Siennas regardless of whether they were built before or after Sept. 1? Up until I saw your post, I was under the impression that 2008 Siennas built before Sept. 1 were admissible and were not affected by the CMVSS 114 issue. Surely not even the RIV could backtrack THAT much.
A: Stating that the vehicle does not comply with the standards i.e. they are determining whether the standards are met OR
B: They are not providing details to TC for TC to objectively determine if the vehicles meet the standards.
I suspect that TC is not independently evaluating the vehicles to determine compliance with the standards AND if they do not do so, if the shortfall in meeting the standards can be remedied by acceptable modifications.
When the parties followed the intent of the standards and not abuse them for market protection the system worked (or seemed to work) well. This abuse of the system is what is causing this grief.
I was told today that Transport Canada has made an announcement about the admissibility list but I can't find the announcment. I also was told that the announcement provides that many of the new 2008 models that manufacturers had previously said were inadmissable are going to be allowed in by Transport Canada. If this is true, it would be greatly appreciated if someone could post a confirmation of this and a link to the TC announcement.
Thanks!
Savings
There is no publically available document that describes their announcement on Friday. It is just that inadmissible cars will be allowed in to address people that are "stuck" at the border.
It was done by email from TC to Canada Customs. I asked for a copy today at the border and they said no, it's considered an internal document.
Try hounding TC or RIV or go through your MP. I can't understand why they announce something but then don't tell anyone/everyone!!
Good advice.
I just remembered what this whole absurd situation reminds me of - how many of you have read Catch-22, by Joseph Heller.
If you are a US citizen getting trasferred to Canada and just bought an 08 Sienna manufactured after Sept 01 are you screwed for taking your vehicle to Canada or does Toyota US give a letter saying your vehicle complies.
If they do it would sure be nice to have a copy. Anybody have one?
Any SUV...I was told by RIV yesterday that no 2008 SUVs manufactured after Sept. 1 /2008 are admissible without a compliance letter, yet I keep hearing people saying things that are contrary to this...RIV or someone needs to get their s**t together...
Thanks...
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/ports/
That determination rests with the Canadian gov't.
No where else.
Clearly, the Canadian Gov't has been remiss in this.
Whether it is due to incompetence or malice, I don't know.
I doubt that TC thought that this many people would want to import cars.
Also, the Canadian Gov't is losing out on tax revenue as well.
So, i can see that some enterprising gov't workers would want to close this loophole,with some help from the local auto importers.
This scenario reminds me of the Grey Market fad in the US in the 70's and 80's.
People were buying cars in Europe and importing tham for thousands less than the US versions.
The US DOT put an end to it in the late 80's.
I would not be at all surprised if TC turned the taps all the way off at soem point.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/Explanations.htm... if you it look at the result it seems like a frozen page of a restricted access part of their website. Anyway, it goes through all the admissibility criteria everyone has been discussing including the dreaded Sep 1 2007 manufacturing date and immobilizer stuff and it maybe what RIV is using as guidence... key thing as I read through it is that it starts from the premise that the vehicle being imported is listed in VAFUS as admissible to start with... it doesn't seem to accommodate inadmissibile vehicles at all. This presumably means vehicles on the inadmissibile side of the VAFUS list has been based on the Manufacturer's advise and all the importer's recourse ends there
I guess technically you're correct. It is the gov't that sets the admissibility rules ---- the car manufacturers are merely exploiting a loophole, in order to protect their profit margin. One is guilty of incompetence, and the other is gulity of malice. :mad:
I am actually thinking of importing a Highlander. Does your US dealer sell to Canadians? Do you think they'll provide the compliance to the Canadian buyer i.e. me?
Thanks.
sergebergeron.ca or robert lamb at zscrolllockhotmail.com
netdog
Thanks
The article indicates that TC will allow all people with completed deals to drive the cars home and park them until the mess is rectified.
I suggest that you always contact the border to obtain their requirements and to see if the'll be open for exports when you'll pass.
"See explanations on cover page. 2007 AND 2008 Yaris Sedan built
after September 1st, 2007, admissible only when equipped by
manufacturer's optional electronic immobilization system to comply
with CMVSS 114. The importer must provide RIV with a letter from
the manufacturer stating the vehicle complies with CMVSS 114"
Comments please.
Many people myself included purchased vehicles prior to that date based on verbal advice from RIV agents that the vehicles were admissible.
I think you're on the wrong section of the RIV list. You must be looking at Section 3 - Passenger Cars. You need to look at Section 5.3 or 5.4 depending on whether you're getting one built before or after Sept 1, 2007.
Cheers.
Don't even go there.
YOU are exploiting a loophole,to save yourself money.
We ALL exploit loopholes whenever we can to save money.
Why is it all right for us, and not alright for a business? :confuse:
I have been away and just reviewing the recent posts. Too bad about your dealer changing his mind. Is your understanding that a 2008 (manufactured pre Sept 1) Highlander sport doesn't need a compliance letter re the immobilizer. Taht's my reading of it.
I think you will find that there are quite a few 2008 Pre Sept 1 Highlanders around as my brother in law just bought one. (they are made in Japan so it takes 4-6 weeks to get here from japan and into the dealerships). If you find a dealer willing to do a deal with perhaps a relative in theUS just ask him to send a Digital photo of the US Safety Standard label on the door which has the month of manufacture.
the cannyscot
Ignore mccreeper
http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/HYUNDAI.htm
Hyundais allowed/not allowed
Admissible - "1992-2008 all models"
Inadmissible - "007 AND 2008 All other models built after September 1st, 2007"
So what are the "all other models" that are inadmissible if "all models" are admissible?
Have you checked with the DMV in the state where you bought the vehicle to see if it is illegal to remove a compliance label or sell a vehicle without a compliance label?
Will your helpful dealer take the vehicle back since he claims he would not have sold it if he new the compliance label was needed.?
With the exception of those who bought inadmissible vehicles between Sept 01 and early November when RIV updated their list and declared many 08 models inadmissible the list is now for the most part accurate.
If you are not a Canadian car salesman you must be married to one
It would appear that these same manufacturers are implying that they will issue a compliance letter on a vehicle by vehicle basis if they concur with the reason for the owner to import the vehicle into Canada. The implication is that a permanent US resident has decided to permanently emigrate to Canada.
The manufacturers have convinced TC that the installation of third party immobilizer cannot be safely done - they have implied that their own Canadian dealers are not competent to make the modifications let alone third parties.
I would be interested how the manufacturers will convince TC and RIV that the vehicle they did not certify as meeting the CMVSS standards can meet the standards. I don't know if the manufacturer has to spell out what changes they have made to the vehicle after it was bought by a permanent US resident and before it was admitted to Canada - or does the vehicle miraculously make the modifications on its own.
The thrust of their actions would show their lack of good faith in dealing with their customers. They are abusing the intent of the system to exploit the consumer. The end result will be comparable to shooting themselves in the foot.
The comment that the vehicles are incapable of being safely modified after being sold to the first buyer would negate the issue of any compliance letter unless the manufacturers can detail what has been done to make the vehicle compliant.
My comments above may not apply to some vehicles which are technically legitimately excluded from being admissible but I do find it hard to believe that a majority of models produced by each manufacturer would not meet the CMVSS standards OR be modified to meet them. We do it with the bumpers and DRLs, why not the immobilizers? Are there technical reasons that inhibit such modifications? Can any of the manufacturers to whom this post appears to relate please explain to us what these are?
Under NAFTA we should be easily be able to bring these vehicles accross into Canada!
For the manufacturers to tell TC that their vehicles do not meet Canadian safety standards when they very likely do, and TC accepts it as they do not have the resources to do in depth checking.... now that is a 'loophole'!
If I were Canadian auto dealers I would be SCERAMING at my supplier to get the prices down! Where I live all the dealers lots are jam packed as many are flocking to the US for better deals. Considering how absurd the Canadian prices are, I get a little laugh every time I drive by the car lots...
On another note, I totally agree that Toyota and Honda are losing customers over this. I was going to buy a Toyota, but now over this fiasco I wont buy another Toyota ever again. I've previously owned 3. Good thing there is a lot of choices on the market.
The NAFTA document is over 2,000 pages long which probably makes it the epitome of "loopholes!"
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
It is the duty of Transport Canada and the RIV to cut through the BS on this issue and determine what the real differences are and how they can be modified to meet the Canadian specs. They should give the manufacturers a reasonable (2 weeks?) deadline to provide the details of the modifications requred (if any), failing which, the vehicles will be deemed to meet the Canadian regulations as long as it has a factory-installed immobilizer (as per vehicle specs or option list). Alternatively, TC can adopt the US regulations which apparently were almost identical in any case.
I hope Mr. Lamb and Serge and their group press forward on this basis, because as much as we feel for the individuals who are currently hung up in limbo, there will be many more unless the manufacturers are told that these tactics will not be tolerated.