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
Was your Pilot off lease from Honda or some other leasing company.
BTW - when i brought my last vehicle up through sweetgrass, neither US or Canada customs even bothered to look at the vehicle. Didnt verify VIN & didnt check door sticker. That being said, it was in late october. Only person that looked at the label was crappy tire inspection kid.
OK, I'm dropping the Highlander SUV idea and moving on to a passenger car. Avalon looks CLEAR on the RIV section. But then I find this.
Check out link http://www.riv.ca/english/html/mod_inspect_requirements.html
I know this little red 'NEW' as the bottom wasn't there the other day becuase I printed a copy. What do you make of this? and what does GVWR stand for?
Geesh!
I am thinking of a possible way to help you out.
Was your dealer an Authorized Honda USA Dealer?
One that has sold cars to Canadians, so I am profiting from this loophole.
Even so, I recognize it for what it is.
It is an exception to the way business is conducted normally.
Chances are, the Canadian Gov't will close this avenue, much like the US gov't did with the Gray Market cars.
The immobilizer standard is an effort to close the loophole.
Immobilizers do not contribute to pulic safety or security at all.
A professional car thief will simply tow the car away,and defeat the imobilizer at his convenience.
An amateur will simply carjack you.
The Canadian Gov't, by creating this immobilizer standard, that is different from prior standards is actively aiding the car companies,and the tax renenue of the Canadian gov't as well.
Unless you are an importer, buying a car is a purely doemestic concern.
I am now looking at getting a 2008 Nissan Xterra (i am done with Toyota for a while), and i have some dealer's lined up. I have found some with a pre sep-01 build date but i am still concerned. So if anyone has been successful importing and registering a Nissan or Toyota that was built pre sep-01 i would love to hear about it to ease my mind (after nov 1 would also be important to know).
This statement, in particular, just blows me away:
"The immobilizer standard is an effort to close the loophole.
Immobilizers do not contribute to pulic safety or security at all. "
"If the GVWR of this vehicle is less than 10,000 lbs, and the manufacture date after September 1, 2007, it must be equipped with an electronic lock and immobilizer system that meets CMVSS 114. "
It also says this on paragraph 9 of the EXPLANATIONS section.
How do they know it meets CMVSS without a letter?
I would not try to import anything built after sep-01 right now.
http://www.riv.ca/english/html/mod_inspect_requirements.html
This statement, in particular, just blows me away:
"The immobilizer standard is an effort to close the loophole.
Immobilizers do not contribute to pulic safety or security at all. "
I am an informed individual, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that an immobilizer does not make a whit of difference for a professional car thief.
It's justa sop to consumers.
Cars are stolen primarily to chop up and part out. don't need the ECU for that.
For cars that you want to resell in another market, a bright guy w/ a PC can bypass the immobilizer anyway.
The problem is that the Canadian Gov't wants the motor companies to provide documentation that these US cars meet this new, useless standard.
Naturakky, the motor companies,who don't want their Canadian dealers to lose business, are refusing.
So, in essence, you have a standard that does nothing to help consumers,and because of the way the Canadians have chosen to implement it, allows car companies to not cooperate.
The fact that car companies chose not to cooperate should not be surprising to anyone. Why should they cost their Canadian operations money?
What is in it for them?
Its not a question of Kool Aid, its just reality.
The REAL reason why you have standards for importing vehicles isn't consumer protection, it is so the gov't can guarantee a monopoly, and the gov't can guarantee its share of revenue from that monopoly.
We can debate till the cows come home whether the immobilizer is effective or not. Data suggest that it is, as opposed to alarm systems, which generally are not effective. But it doesn't matter here. My point is that the intent, I repeat, the intent, of the immobilization standard is for public safety and security, not as a tool for manufacturers to stop importation of cars into Canada.
"Why should they cost their Canadian operations money?
What is in it for them?"
Are you kidding me?! What's in it for them? Is that what you said? There's everything in it for the manufacturers!! They can artificially keep prices high!! There may actually be very little impact on the dealers if the manufacturers adjust Canadian prices to fall in line with US prices. Lower MSRP, lower invoice cost = similar margin. In fact, I dare say if the manufacturers adjusted Canadian prices, the Canadian dealers will stand to gain, because more people will buy cars in Canada. Almost every dealer in Canada is hurting right now due to the disparity between Canadian & US prices.
You are so out to lunch on this one.
This standard does not apply to vehicles over that weight - mainly trucks and buses. Few consumers use vehicles which have a GVWR over 10,000 lbs.
This advice is not new. I have seen it elsewhere. I think that they may have flagged it NEW for the particular section whereas it may have been included in a general section.
On the VAFUS pdf files which have not recently been posted but is now posted again at this site
http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/VAFUS.pdf
this data is in paragraph 9 on page 2. Obviously RIV is being given a hard time on this so they have spelled it out in each section to which it applies.
My dealer told me that he cannot take my car because the car does not have the title. The car is considered as ‘sold’, the paperwork was done but the car was not registered.The dealer cannot take used vehicle that has MSO, the dealer needs the title.
Did anybody investigate the issue of returning unregistered car to the dealer?
I see that under section 5.3 for vehicles manufactured after Sept 1 2007, the RIV lists under Admissable "2008 All Models" for Ford, however, the Notes says "See explanations section". Does that mean that even though 2008 all models are admissable, I would still need Ford to provide a letter stating that the vehicle comes with an imobilizer that meets CMVSS 114?
Also, does anyone have experience dealing with Ford on this issue, and/or on US Ford dealers selling to Canadians?
"To import a vehicle from the U.S. the vehicle must be cited as admissible on Transport Canada's List of Vehicles Admissible from the United States. Assuming this vehicle is listed as admissible, the vehicle must also bear a Statement of Compliance label affixed by the Original Equipment Manufacturer stating that "the vehicle as manufactured to comply with all US federal emission, bumper and safety standards on the date of manufacture". Failing that, we will accept a letter from the manufacturer stating the same."
I wrote back and ask them to clarify... if the vehicle bears the statement of compliance label, no letter is required? I'll keep you guys posted.
Cheers.
If you've failed to cross once due to this technicality, try and try again. Many posters here including myself went through customs without any physical inspection of the vehicle. Same thing goes for the CT inspection, although you may be dinged with re-inspection fees on that end if you need to try and try again. Regardless, the laws of averages are on your side and the costs are likely to be lower than the loss you will incur to return it.
Best of luck.
netdog
"Assuming this vehicle is listed as admissible,..."
I was interpreting things the same way as you but now know how to read the list. Every notes section has the words "See explanation section". These 3 words apply to all cars listed in the admissible column. When you refer to the explanation section it tells you that you need a 114 compliance letter. This is how it is working...
Sucks but true. They need to take all toyotas and list them as inadmissible because they effectively are...
Cheers
Just to go into more detail. If you go and check specs for all vehilces shown as admissible without immobilizer as standard .They carry see notes section. as Highlander base model do. You have to see " safety" column in all vehilce specifications.
Just curious if anyone has imported one ....
Thanks!
I guess we'll see if the CBC is a friend of the enterprising little guy or the overly anal bureaucratic establishment.
I have been told about this announcement coming, but it sounds like only vehicles purchased before Nov 1st will be allowed in. These vehicles manufactured after Sept.1st have an engine imobilizer and not an anti theft engine imobilizer required in Canada. Toyota probably did this to prevent dealerships to sell to Canada. RIV and TC insist that Toyota is calling the shots. They are the ones who decide what is admissible according to Canadian standards. I was also told by an imobilizer installer in Manitoba that he can make this vehicle conform to standard for only 250.00$. The Toyota dealership meanwhile said it would cost thousands of dollars if they did it.
On Nov. 16th I went to check on my vehicle and changed the temporary permit. When I re-entered at the border, a guard told me I could take the vehicle in, but I would probably have to export it after TC makes it's announcement. Being alone and not wanting to add miles to the vehicle, I left it there.
I am at a loss as to what to do. Temporary insurance is only good for 30 days. I now have what is considered a used vehicle. I will probably have to trade it on another vehicle in the States (more time and money) and lose out on the trade. I am stressed out over this. If anyone has suggestions or ideas, please write them here.
Thanks
You cannot trust that the beaurocrats or the minister of transportation will act in your best interests so I think you are wise to leave your vehicle on the US side until we get a clear, concise and definitive ruling from TC.
I bought an inadmissible vehicle on October 18 based on the advice of two different RIV agents.(I always phone at least twice) When I told an RIV agent last week that I had been told in early October it was OK she said there is no way an agent would have told me that and if I didn't have a file number tough. I said since you are calling me a liar I need your name and a file number.
As of today my vehicle is still inadmissible and another call to TC remains unanswered. I did get an e mail from RIV confirming my vehicle is inadmisible and telling me all the files relating to vehicles purchased before Nov 01 are now inaccesible to RIV
How reliable is the RIV statement that letters of recall for Honda are not needed because Honda is "not cooperating". Do you have it in writing.
If that is RIV's corporate position, then why can't that reasoning/principle be extended to other areas where the manufacturer is "not cooperating" - i.e. the CMVSS 114 thing.
It sounds great but if it came verbally from RIV, I'd be weary of relying on it.
We are concerned citizens because:
- a lawful process established by our country is being manipulated and hijacked such that the lawful process which is our right, is being voided
We are concerned citizens because:
- we are not standing by and letting the manufacturers roll over us (likely with the vehicles we bought but can't register!)
We are concerned citizens because:
- we are using all lawful means at our disposal to correct the travesty that is taking place by trying to persuade our elected officials to ensure Canadian rules, regulations and policies are instituted, implemented and enforced for the benefit of Canadians, not corporations engaged in a fleecing exercise
We are concerned citizens because:
- enough is enough
Does anyone really think the sudden parity pricing initiatives we now see in Canada would have occurred, had it not been for the importers
Lead Story, and a very good one at that.
Finally, Cannon speaks.
Kudos to Mr. Brar and Mr. Lamb.
1st goal - get plates for everybody who is in Canada and victim of RIV flipflops.
2nd goal - solve immobiliser issue for all and then ....we'll see. maybe princing?
P.S. First story on the CBC the National tonight great job Bon Lamb and the team.
Keep up the pressure - write MP.s - Minister Cannon, check the new web site. :P
www.carswithoutborders.com
www.autossansfrontieres.com
The CBC report was excellent in making it clear that RIV kept changing their lists and also got Minister Cannon to make a statement
I hope that applies to the HV models as well coz that's what I'm interested in.
Thanks for the clarification.
I was able to register my Sienna without my Form 2, further proof that none of these agencies have a clue what is going on (provincial, federal or CBSA).