I have just purchased a 2008 Highlander which is to be delivered to the Detroit border for me to pick up next week. I do not have a CMVSS114 form but I do have a letter, signed and stamped, from the dealer in Ohio stating that the vehicle has an upgraded version of the standard factory engine immobilizer. Will this be sufficient to able me to register it and what else do I need?
1) Highlander Hybrid, the standard build is with the " immobilizer" but MUST I order the optional "Anti-Theft w/ Immobilizer" in order to satisfy the RIV requirements and also with the
2) RAV4 LTD it's built with " immobilizer" but do I need to order the optional "V.I.P. RS3200 Plus System (PIO)"
YOU should be concern about YOUR money and YOUR lifestyle and YOUR priorities. I am doing what it is best for ME. If it is worth for ME to import car, I will do that. And I will put 10000 I saved into MY kids education fund. How long it take for you to save 10000? I mean to save 10000$, not to earn 10000$? Think about that for a minute and then decide if you want your kids to go to University.
I think this forum is to provide average car buyers the information of "How to import cars from US to Canada", not to debate on "Should or shouldn't we import cars from US to Canada". Some posts up there are really off topic.
During 2003-2004 Transport Canada (TC) decided to adopt an United Nations theft deterrent and immobilizer standard. After consultation with the automobile manufacturers, Insurance Bureau of Canada, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and other auto and insurance industry groups Transport Canada unilaterally decided to jettison Canadian Motor Vehicle Standard 114 and replace it with the UN standard effective Sept 01 2007. That is cars manufactured before Sept. 01 2007 fall under the old standard which essentially was a copy of FMVSS 114 the US standard and to which the European Standard was also deemed to conform. During the consultation process in 2003-2004 with respect to the adoption of the amended CMVSS114 (the UN Standard), the Canadian Motor vehicle Association objected as did the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and the Insurance Bureau of Canada wanted a common standard i.e. FMVSS114 with the option for Canadians importing from US to install a home grown version of CMVSS/FMVSS 114 (BC home grown!!!). Major problems arose beginning Sept. 01 2007 when most automobile manufacturers looked for ways to impose non-tariff barriers to private auto imports from the US. CMVSS114 was the ideal candidate and most auto manufacturers, including GM, in the case of the Corvette about which I originally enquired, are using it to prevent Canadians from buying motor vehicles in the U.S. at lower prices than available in in Canada. If CMVSS 114 did not exist they would look around for something else. The solution is harmonization of motor vehicle standards which Transport Canada have opposed to the detriment of taxpayers who pay their salaries. Accordingly, I do not believe that it is simply the matter of an immobilizer or an absorber. People are flocking to the United States (in such numbers to buy the vehicle of their choice at a lower cost than is available in Canada) that Transport Canada had to change its position with respect to physically allowing purchasers of inadmissible cars into Canada last weekend because the Canada Border Service Agency was inundated at the Canadian Border crossings with so many people with cars that suddenly and unexpectedly had become inadmissible notwithstanding that the purchased had done the proper due diligence with respect to the admissibility of the car before they bought it. For example, most Fords were admissible last week, then on last weekend they became inadmissible. This also happened with a couple of other brands. Most GM’s have been inadmissible. The following statistics compiled by The Registrar of Imported Vehicles (“RIV”) demonstrate the number of Canadians who may have been or will be affected by the unharmonized Transport Canada regulations: Number of Canadians who bought U.S. vehicles last month. 25,000 Estimated number of Canadians who will buy a vehicle in the U.S. this year. 170,000 Previous record for number of Canadians buying U.S. vehicles. 112,000 Estimated number of vehicles purchased in the U.S. that will be new. 40% Number of Canadians calling the registrar per day, looking for information on importing American cars. 5,000 Number of Canadians who called earlier this week, when the dollar hit $1.08 (U.S.) Source: Registrar of Imported Vehicles
The status of the harmonization initiative that started in 2002 is shown in the following table:
Vehicle Manufacturers in the North American Environment The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
Background:
In general, Canadian safety policy has a consistent structure with the U.S. policy. The Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) are largely similar to, and patterned after, the American Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), and flows naturally from the high level of integration in the industry. However, exceptions between the two nations' safety standards do exist with additional exceptions being contemplated.
In addition to the actual standards, differences exist between Canadian and American authorities with respect to how vehicle certification is undertaken to show compliance with those standards. Significant differences exist between government and industry regarding the extent to which engineering judgment and electronic simulation should be accommodated for vehicle certification and the level of documentation necessary to demonstrate full compliance. Transport Canada's position would appear to be significantly different than that of the U.S. NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) and is viewed by industry as an impediment to innovative practices to the testing and early commercialization of advanced technologies.
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.
Industry has formally requested data from Transport Canada that supports the need for different belted occupant standards for chest deflection in Canada than in the US. (chest deflection is one component of this amendment). 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 approx 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. The goal is to harmonize the requirements of CMVSS 208 with the equivalent belted requirements of US regulation FMVSS 208.
(3) CMVSS 215 - Bumpers
Issue:
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 t
I spoke with Robert Lamb this morning and he is asking that we send him a copy of the export notice to his email address at rlamb@videotron.ca. He is gathering the info to support his arguments that while the minister of Transport Mr Cannon is saying one thing publicly regarding addressing this problem for those of us who purchased a vehicle that was later deemed inadmissible, while his department agency (RIV) is now kicking these vehilces out of the country. The sooner you can send him your notice the better. I have already sent him mine.
From the events of the past several weeks, I sense that with all the finger pointing between TC and the RIV that there is a lot of bad blood that has built up between them and probably boiled over last Friday when the TC scolded the RIV in a conference call. In response, the RIV is probably simply following due process and issuing export notices for any and all vehicles currently listed as inadmissible. It cannot be a coincidence that we started receiving these export notices starting last Friday. Has anyone else received one and when was it dated?
hey i understand the savings, but something bigger is going on here is all i am trying to say that will have an impact on the future. and just curious what price range of vehicle are you dreaming of buying that would save you $10,000 dollars. because if i told you i am buying an escalade and saving 10,000 dollars you probably wouldlnt care about my kids education you would tell me to buy a smaller car. and if you told me you were buying a minivan and you would be saving 10,000 dollars i would tell you you were misinformed. its not all peaches across the border do all your homework because at the end of the day with lower prices in canada and lower interest rates your payments will be very similar in canada verses the states
If it is a base model with the optional immobilizer installed, you could be in trouble. The VAFUS clearly indicates that it must be from the "Manufacturer", however, how RIV defines "Manufacturer" isn't noted. Maybe a dealer letter will fly, maybe it won't.
If it is a Sport, Limited or Hybrid, you should be fine. These three versions all have an immobilizer. It is only the base where it is optional.
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.
There is no evidence that 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. As a result the difference in regulatory standards should be eliminated, and given Canada's market size, the U.S. standards should be adopted.
(6) Additional list of unique Canadian requirements:
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 End of exerpt from Report of the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council June 2005 The complete Report can be found at: http://capcinfo.ca/english/reports/report_jun28_05.html#impact
A period of two years elapsed between the 2005 and 2007 Reports with not only little progress being made towards harmonization but Transport Canada creating further obstacles to harmonization as evidenced by the intransigence of Transport Canada with their immobilizer standard. Auto manufacturers all attempt to control inventories by regions whether it be Canada or the U.S. The problem is that Canadian taxpayers we are paying for Transport Canada to create barriers that enable the manufacturers to charge Canadians more than an American who may live less than 60 miles from the Canadian Border. The destination charge
They were charging a premium when the dollar was below par. Two years ago the US dollar was at C$1.25, now at, say .C.95 an increase in foreign exchange profit for the auto manufacturers.
Exerpts: “- The problem is a Transport Canada regulation that requires 2008 vehicles to have a device that deters car thieves, something known as a theft immobilizer. - “I was going to pay cash,” said Mr. Patterson, a software developer for Research In Motion Ltd. “I had some money stashed away for a rainy day.” - He was also going to save more than $30,000. That's based on a price of $72,290 after a $5,500 rebate in Atlantic City, compared with $102,130 (Canadian) – including options – he figured on paying for the high-end Z06 model in Canada. - The Canadian anti-theft requirement, meanwhile, has auto makers seeing red because they have been pushing Ottawa for years to harmonize our regulations with those south of the border and not introduce standards that apply only in this country. - Some auto makers are not installing the devices in cars built for the U.S. market, are putting them only on selected vehicles, or installing systems that don't meet the Transport Canada standards. (Auto makers say there is no after-market kit for installing the devices that will meet the Canadian regulation.) = Vehicles without the immobilizer systems are banned from importation into Canada by the Registrar of Imported Vehicles, the Transport Canada department that decides which cars and trucks are allowed in. = (By filing with Transport Canada that most of their vehicles are not admissible for importation) GM Canada is simply complying with the Canadian regulation, said spokesman Stew Low. - “The other question is why Transport Canada has chosen to continue a path of unique Canadian standards and not worked to harmonize standards across North America,” Mr. Low said.” - The number of Canadians heading south to buy a car appears to be growing daily, according to the Registrar of Imported Vehicles. Here's a breakdown: Number of Canadians who bought U.S. vehicles last month. 25,000 Estimated number of Canadians who will buy a vehicle in the U.S. this year. 170,000 Previous record for number of Canadians buying U.S. vehicles. 112,000 Estimated number of vehicles purchased in the U.S. that will be new. 40% Number of Canadians calling the registrar per day, looking for information on importing American cars. 5,000 Number of Canadians who called earlier this week, when the dollar hit $1.08 (U.S.) 7,000 Source: Registrar of Imported Vehicles”
The Comments which the Globe had included the following: “P Stevens from Toronto, Canada writes: Seems like many here are torn. No one wants to pay more for any product...a few dollars perhaps, but 30 or 40% more NOT A CHANCE. I don't care who you are. Some of the posts here are nationalistic, the -buy-at-home-to-save-jobs types when in fact many of the vehicles you pay that 30-40% premium are made in the USA or offshore. A perfect example is the Toyota Matrix made in Cambridge Ontario...same car here not only costs more for Delivery (660 in USA vs 1200 in Canada) BUT also costs almost 30% more....yet its built right next door to us!!?!?! The balance are those are jealouse of those that have the means to save a buck, made the trip to the USA after doins some research and now are suffering over a standard that is frivilous and does nothing to improve safety, no matter what some of the posters beleive. Think about it if I can't get your car started maybe I break into your house and hurt you for the keys, OR I carjack you, a false sense of security is still a false sense of
The Comments which the Globe had included the following: “P Stevens from Toronto, Canada writes: Seems like many here are torn. No one wants to pay more for any product...a few dollars perhaps, but 30 or 40% more NOT A CHANCE. I don't care who you are. Some of the posts here are nationalistic, the -buy-at-home-to-save-jobs types when in fact many of the vehicles you pay that 30-40% premium are made in the USA or offshore. A perfect example is the Toyota Matrix made in Cambridge Ontario...same car here not only costs more for Delivery (660 in USA vs 1200 in Canada) BUT also costs almost 30% more....yet its built right next door to us!!?!?! The balance are those are jealouse of those that have the means to save a buck, made the trip to the USA after doins some research and now are suffering over a standard that is frivilous and does nothing to improve safety, no matter what some of the posters beleive. Think about it if I can't get your car started maybe I break into your house and hurt you for the keys, OR I carjack you, a false sense of security is still a false sense of security. The idea of Standards is to standardize...why is this so illogicial...many cars sold already have immobilizers, why a special high tech one for Canada that is COSTLY when we have 10-20 million cars on the road WITHOUT an immobilizer, perhaps now the car thieves will steal more older vehicles, impacting the less well off. See no matter how you spin it someone loses with standards that aren't standardized in the world market...and I am not saying that we abandon all standards either, but geeze commons sense says that if I implement a special made in Canada policy it will directly impact future car buyers who want choice and who we already allow to import vehicles.... Basically the government morons that created this standard ensure we lose the right to import any vehicles produced after 2008!?!?!? Give it 10 years and no more vehicle imports from anywhere,perhaps the vehicle manufacturers didn't really push this as they could see the PROFIT on the wall too!! • Posted 20/11/07 at 9:37 AM EST”
Buyers of barred cars can drive home, but no farther GREG KEENAN AND STEVEN CHASE November 20, 2007
“ - Buyers of new vehicles that lack the proper theft immobilization device may now import them, but must park these cars or trucks until Transport Canada finds a permanent solution to the regulatory snafu that prompted the ban. The reprieve may be temporary and the ban put back in place, Transport Canada spokesman Patrick Charette said Monday, but for now Mr. Hill, Mr. Perry and others are allowed to bring their vehicles home. - “But that doesn't solve the issue,” Mr. Charette cautioned. “If their vehicle is not admissible, they will not be able to plate their vehicle and it's not a guarantee that their vehicle will be allowed permanent importation and licensing in Canada.” - Ottawa banned vehicles sold by several manufacturers in the United States because they didn't have theft devices that met a new standard established by Transport Canada for vehicles manufactured after Sept. 1. The ban was rescinded after the Canadian Border Services Agency raised the problem of cars being denied entry to Canada, Mr. Charette said. = Blocking U.S. vehicles because of the theft immobilization devices “is discriminatory to Canadians as it is allowing automobile manufacturers to maintain their high pricing structure for new cars in Canada,” said Mr. Hill, a Calgary financial consultant who bought a 2008 Sienna last month. “This is either collusion or unintended consequences.”
- Several auto makers have pointed out that they actually opposed the change in the regulation on theft immobilizers, that discussion of the change first started more than four years ago and that the timing of the new regulation accidentally coincided with the rise in the Canadian dollar.
- The list of banned vehicles was broadened last week to include 2008 models manufactured after Sept. 1 and sold in the United States by Ford Motor Co. [F-N], Hyundai Motor Co. and Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd. All 2008 General Motors Corp. [GM-N] models, several Honda Motor Co. Ltd. vehicles and about half of the Toyota Motor Corp. [TM-N] lineup are also affected.”
I hope the foregoing has been of help in understanding why Canadians have to pay more when they attempt to purchase a car in Canada.
For the benefit of the RAV / Highlander group, and other Toyota / Lexus / Scion buyers for that matter, can I suggest again that someone try looking at the technical info site for Toyota? Given that we know some models have a CMVSS compliant immobilizer, it should be possible to compare part numbers and determine if the part is the same across other "non-compliant" models or not. Here's the link:
Anyone can use the system -- you don't need to be an employee of Toyota.
The cost is as follows:
Day - $10 US Month - $50 US Year - $350 US
Good luck! And if someone is successful in researching this, please share for the benefit of the group and Robert Lamb's "Cars without Borders" organization.
1. Dealer sends title to US Border Customs Patrol at least 72 business hours in advance of your export from the US (note: while some exceptions have been noted on this site, this is the US Customs official requirement) 2. When leaving the US, you check-in with US export control. They give you the title and check to make sure it matches the car's VIN. 3. You go to Canada Customs and declare that you are importing the vehicle. You go inside, pay your GST, duty and A/C tax, etc. They prepare FORM 1, which is then faxed to RIV. 4. RIV will e-mail, mail or allow you to pick-up FORM 2. To get it e-mailed, you need to call them with your case # (listed on top of FORM 2). 5. With FORM 2 in hand, you get the vehicle inspected at Canadian Tire. They either approve and stamp FORM 2, or let you know what modifications need to be done. If modifications are required, you have to get them done and have the vehicle re-inspected. If the modifications are acceptable, FORM 2 gets stamped and faxed to RIV. 6. With the stamped FORM 2, you go to the Provinical Ministry of Transportation office and get your plate and provincial registration. 7. RIV sends you a sticker to put on the car indicating that it has been imported and all is good. 8. Laugh about how much you have saved...
There is a price difference on Toyota Sienna LE 2008: Price in US: 26100. That is LE + power doors + alloy wheels + mudguards + convinience package. That was a price I got witout negotiating with a dealer. That is price on the road. Dealer went throug all paperwork, but last minute got a call from Toyota US telling them that if they will sell it, then they'll loose licence.
Price in Canada: 37000$. That is MSRP: 37225 + 1400(PDI) - 1000(Rebate)-625(dealer discount).
26100 + tax(13%) = 29754 37000+tax(13%) = 42180.
Add 1000 expense to get car from US. Event negotite 1000 her less from the deler.
I welcome the argument from freshtunes that he found the $2,000 savings from going to the US to be not worth while. It helps to keep things in perspective.
But when I ran the numbers I found, as freshtunes indicated, that the comparison was based on US MSRP vs. a Canadian very hard bargaining deal. The real cash price in the US would have been lower with some bargaining.
If you suceeded in getting only $1,000 off the MSRP of $26,733 in the US, after excise tax, PST and GST the comparative price would have been $1,200 less so the savings would have been $3,200. If you could beat the US dealer down by $2,000, the savings would have been $4,400.
Good news for RAV people. List just got updated in last few minutes It now says:
2007 AND 2008 RAV4 (sport and base models) built after September 1st, 2007 (see notes) 2007 AND 2008 RAV-4 Limited 2008 Highlander Sport 2008 Highlander HV 2008 4Runner 2008 Highlander Limited 2007 AND 2008 Highlander (base model) built after September 1st, 2007 (see notes)
So no see notes section in front of RAV limted. I hope this does mean that RAv limited do not need letter too.
jeppers, creepers .... unless I misunderstood your post, I think you are in the wrong forum. I am sure that if you search you will find another forum to share your protectionist beliefs about cross-border shopping. This forums is all about "Importing a Car into Canada from US" and serves to share information and experiences to that effect.
your misinformation is toyota is not the only car manufacture that makes a minivan. in canada when the dollar was lower, toyota was grossly over priced to begin with. i can name 10 other car manufactures that make minivans and i can assure you most of them are pretty darn close to parity when you factor in interet rates.
I found something on RIV website regarding the Honda Recall Clearance Letter, go to www.riv.ca, click on recall clearance letter, then go to the bottom and click on consult the contact information list. Go to Honda contact info, and you will find the web info for the Honda owners link recall letter. If riv has this info on their website i'm sure they would except the letter in lieu of the Manufactures recall clearance letter. I spoke to them and they said they would except it.
Am I reading the RIV chart section 5 - Pre Sept 1st 2008 manufacture correctly, when I conclude it's OK to import ANY 2007 Highlander into Canada? Thanks.
Gee McCreeper. Now, in addition to hectoring people on the list about their un-Canadian ways, you're evaluating whether Toyotas are overpriced compared to other minivans. There is a reason that Honda and Toyota are consistently rated #1. Quality. That's why so many of the posts discuss Honda and Toyota models, It's one thing to pipe up with an opinion, but for crying out loud, quit the preaching.
and another thing please lern to use the spelcheck the cap key your posts are very hard to read as well as understand
A women named Diane from TC returned my call this morning. She said there will be no press conference or imminent decision. She said if I bought a car manufactured After Sept 01 that was inadmissible it would not be given amnesty and to do so would have Transport Canada break their own laws.
She said I could however get a letter of compliance from Toyota.
When she became aware in our discussion that I was fully informed with copies of the amnesty letter and October VAFUS she told me to fax copies of the info and my story to TC
I'll keep everbody posted but it doesn't look good to me for a resolution anytime soon.
all the time you people are wasting on waititng to see if your cars quailify or if you will be able to register that car in canada is not worth my hasssle to save a few thousand bucks
I think that how people choose to spend their time is their own business and it is not necessarily the best use of your own time telling them how to spend theirs.
I agree, I would be happy to spend an extra $4,000-$5,000 and by a car in Canada. The reality is I'm not retarded and will not spend an extra >$10,000 just to line the pockets of a wealthy Canadian car dealer. Get a grip loser. My wife and I both earn over $100k and could easily afford to by a new car here but we're not stupid. The money I save on buying a car in the US can go towards my sons education, although that's not necessary as we max out his RESP each year. No, maybe we'll just take a nice vacation to Florida or California with the money we save. Get a grip on things pal.
"keep up the pressure people. once again i will revert to the stat of how man cars are on track to enter canada this year by importation. under 150,000. most of that are from dealers and brokers."
There were 25,000 imports in Oct..... double that of Oct. 06. Thats 25,000 people that apparently don't have the infinate wisdom you have.
"so for a little short term gain you are screwing us with long term pain"
Nope, it's people like yourself that use the Canadian socialist system to the point of abuse that screw us all.
"as all of you dont have the cash saved up to go risk it in the states. 98 percent of you will use borrowed money and call it cash"
Ahhh! Finally, I see where you are coming from............ you are jealous of those who choose to work harder / smarter than you to get ahead. And by the way, some of us do have the cash to pay for a new luxury vehicle. Don't worry, I am sure the decrease in value for Canadian market cars won't affect your prize Plymouth K-Car.
My humble opinion is that we are giving Mr. McCreeper way to much attention ... I look forward to more valued and helpful information with respect to importing vehicles
I'm having a little problem understanding the amount of "misinformation" on this subject! My question to RIV would be "Since when do you (RIV) or Toyota get to determine what is admissable or not?" I would ask this because the Transport Canada website identifies that " as part of the RIV inspection the IMPORTER will be required to supply documentation to prove that the vehicle came with a factory installed system that complies with CMVSS 114 OR that a recognized aftermarket system that meets the intent of CMVSS 114, has been installed." CMVSS 114 was introduced in 2005 to comply with the National Standard of Canada ULC S338/98. Go to the ICBC web site and you will see that there are four (4) after market systems that they (IBC) recognize as meeting the standard. RIV simply CANNOT be told by Toyota how to interperate Transport Canada Regulations. If Toyota won't provide you with a letter of compliance then get your importer to write one based on it being on your equipment list/invoice or get one of the 4 approved aftermarket devises installed with a letter from the installer stating same. Regards Rod M1
Your point is valid with every VAFUS list I've seen EXCEPT the current one which was updated yesterday (Nov. 21) - see the enhanced "Explanations".
That being said, everyone who has imported or tried to import their vehicles using the rules in place at the time of purchase MUST bang their MPs over the head with it until they get it and they communicate same in no uncertain terms to Cannon.
I've now demanded a face-to-face meeting with my MP.
It is so clear in EXPLANATIONS section that which vehicle need letter and which doesn't. I think thay have just updated this today . The language on RIV website is
"ADMISSIBLE VEHICLES:
A vehicle manufactured after September 1, 2007 (may be a 2007 or a 2008 model) is ADMISSIBLE if:
1) The vehicle is listed in the "ADMISSIBLE" column of the List of Vehicles Admissible from the United States. This means that it is manufacturer-equipped (standard) with an electronic immobilization system that meets the requirements of CMVSS 114.
2) The vehicle is listed in the "ADMISSIBLE" column of the List of Vehicles Admissible from the United States but is followed by "~" and/or "(see notes)". This means that the vehicle does not come standard with an electronic immobilization system that meets the requirements of CMVSS 114, but either:
a. An electronic immobilization system that meets the requirements of CMVSS 114 is available as a manufacturer option. In this case, it must be factory-installed; it is NOT possible to install the system after market, because the manufacturer will not be able to ensure that it complies with CMVSS 114. When an electronic immobilization system that meets the requirements of CMVSS 114 is available as a manufacturer option, the importer must provide a letter from the manufacturer stating that the vehicle meets the CMVSS 114.
Moral of the story: If you do have "see notes" section you need letter. & if you don't have "see notes" section. YOU JUST DO NOT NEED LETTER. call RIV yourself.
I spoke to RIV today about the status of the release of form 2. My vehicle is a 2008 Prius built Aug 07, crossing the border Sept 16. RIV had recorded it as having been built Oct 2007 (due to the CBSA officer not filling in the correct data on form 1) they did not recognize the impossibility that an Oct build could cross the border in Sept. I sent them evidence that it was Aug 07 and was subsequently told I would have my form 2 within 48 hours.
Anyway I was informed , in passing, that they were in the process of issuing over 3,000 form 2's and that I should be patient and expect it sometime in the next few days. In my opinion, if it takes them 2 minutes to review the file and issue the form 2 it looks as though they will process 30 forms per man-hour so we are looking at 100 man hours to clear this little backlog - if true. That's about 15 days work for 1 person. I hope they feel they can provide the resources to enable more than one person to process these forms. If they take 4 minutes per file you can double the time frame.
It is going to be interesting to see what the time frames are - or if the story is just a line.
"In the nine years that the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) has been tracking such thefts, no vehicle in Canada with an immobilizer meeting the national standard has been stolen due to the defeat of an immobilizer."
Above is a quote from the Mastergard site. So in 9 years of using an FMVSS compliant immobilizer there has never been theft due to the defeat of an immobilizer.
And now we need a unique CMVSS standard. :surprise: I think I need a drink
I visited the RIV website this morning and saw a revised list showing the Toyota "2007 AND 2008 RAV4 LTD built after September 1st, 2007" were in the acceptable column but this evening the revised list is longer there.
What are you talking about? . List is still there and RAV 4 ltd is ok asper the list. Check website again. May be something wrong with your cookies or so
I know that the RIV is completely backed up. I had my vehicle inspected near the end of October and I still haven't seen the approval sticker. Whenever I call RIV (adding to their workload), they say they haven't seen the stamped Form 2. Whenever I call the inspection centre, they say they've faxed it twice. I have 1 day left on my Form 2 and the inspection centre says that there are people receiving export notices before they even get to the pile of incoming Form 2's. Curious...
THAT IS DEFINITELY A CLEAR ONE. But can we expect that TC will keep the list unchanged in the coming few weeks.............now hopefully i can bring my CAMRY 2008 in CANADA without compliance letter . Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Very informative. The problem is bigger than I was aware of. We have bureaucrats interfering for the sake of interfering without any regard for common, economic or engineering sense. This is what happens when gov't has functions that are unnecessary, they do succeed in putting sand in the gears. Not only will the consumers suffer but the Canadian auto workers in assembly and parts plants are also in danger. Thanks again for your input.
wrajinder I'm sure your are right however when I go to riv.ca and click english and then clicked on "Transport Canada's List of Vehicles Admissible from the United States" and then clicked on "List of Vehicles Admissible from the United States -PDF format" Iget the list but when I went to section 3 it gave me the un-revised version.
I have tried on three computers in this house and cannot get to the revised version showing the RAV 4 acceptance. I know I had this morning. Please give me the link. Thanks.
I've called the RIV and called etc and then yesterday they said oh, we have you in the computer for FORM 1 - but we do not have a recall letter. To which I said you accepted it 3 weeks ago - he found it somewhere over there and said ok this needs to go to the supervisor tomorrow. Today at noon I received an e-mail saying they cannot issue the FROM 2 because they do not have the recall letter - so I faxed it in again and half an hour later I received FORM 2 with a spelling mistake in my first name - I wrote to them again and finally voila...I have a valid form 2 - this is a Prius 2008, August manufacture. So stay on the phone, send in faxes etc, it will come.
Last thing - papers, TC say 1000 cars without borders then why would RIV say they have 3000 to do. I suspect the numbers are much..much higher.
Wrajinder, Many, many thanks, that shows you what a day of studying how to buy a car in the USA can do to one's brain. I completely missed it was in section 5.4. I think it's time to quit!!!!!
Hmm...let's see....volvomax earlier said immobolizer is completely ineffective against theft. Who do we go by? IBC or volvomax? Is the truth out there?! Somewhere? Anywhere? :P
Now this clear language is fantastic...the only other piece of the puzzle I want to see is some protection for people in terms of being able to rely on the list contents remaining static for a certain period of time. It is great that such clarity has been added but based on how things have been going so far this clarity could change back to confusion in the blink of an eye...something needs to be done on this front...
I like smart people...right there with ya brother...you have the same tolerance as I do...I too would be willing to get screwed for 4 - 5k....pretty sad that we as Canadians consider that okay, but I know many people who would find it acceptable to pay that premium if it meant keeping business in Canada...I not trying to be greedy...I just want to see at least some level of respect coming my way...
Fair enough about negotiating a price lower than MSRP....The difficult part is finding a way around Honda USA not allowing dealerships to sell to Canadians plus RIV restrictions. I guess you could find a friend/relative to purchase the vehicle for you, but then you may run into sales tax to add to the cost.
The best advice I can give to everyone is do your research and make decisions based on what works best for you. Many want to wait it out and see what RIV does. Many think that dealerships will drop their prices further. For myself, I saw an opportunity to buy well below the MSRP, have full warranty, have a Canadian vehicle that will be easier to trade in/resell at a later date and a truck to have for the upcoming winter. I personally believe that the manufacturers will put more of a strangle hold and we may not see these rebates for very much longer.... I could be wrong though
The key is in the interpretation, for example a car put on a dolly and rolled away without working on the immobilizer would not count as a theft by "defeating the immobilizer". An accurate copy of the key would not count as theft by "defeating the immobilizer" it worked perfectly did it not? You have a lot of guns/tasers don't kill people.......thinking. Studies used in the 2003-2004 CMVSS114 showed a 50% decline in auto thefts in Immobilizer equipped autos. Newly introduced systems would be very effective until thief education ramped up in a matter of months. IBC/ICBC recommendations to go with home grown after market systems would result in innovation and change that would be of more benefit in the long run. Standards set in stone are easily identified and just as easily defeated. A given model produced for four years will have an immobilizer associated with it, defeat one and you have the key to all of them.
Yes the pressure is working a bit - slowly. Let's keep pressure on politicians and our letters need to say :"we followed all the rules" some jurnalists, people like to say that we took a chance, we were greedy, did not fully understand the complexities etc etc. We need to tell the politicians "we followed all the rules" fix up this mess and get plates for the 1000's who have cars without borders.
We are all exhausted and I agree if the differrence was $2-3000, I would have bought in Canada but not at $10,000 difference - I have grandchildren and I can buy exactly like others have said :education savings plans for my grandchildren.
For those who have registered on carswithoutborders.com, we have seen the results, the post - the problems - we are close to 50 so far, we have people in all parts of the country. On the weekend I will give an update say by car model, by province - and statistics like that. I beleive it is important to know that we are not alone. We have our team volunteers analysing the new VFAS and also looking at immobilizers. We are improving the web site. We are scrambling for time, as we have full time jobs, but this whole issue is too important to just let go. We are keeping the pressure. Please register your story, your vehicle (confidentiality is very important to us all). WE FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES www.carswithoutborders.com
Comments
1) Highlander Hybrid, the standard build is with the " immobilizer" but MUST I order the optional "Anti-Theft w/ Immobilizer" in order to satisfy the RIV requirements and also with the
2) RAV4 LTD it's built with " immobilizer" but do I need to order the optional "V.I.P. RS3200 Plus System (PIO)"
Thanks
Major problems arose beginning Sept. 01 2007 when most automobile manufacturers looked for ways to impose non-tariff barriers to private auto imports from the US.
CMVSS114 was the ideal candidate and most auto manufacturers, including GM, in the case of the Corvette about which I originally enquired, are using it to prevent Canadians from buying motor vehicles in the U.S. at lower prices than available in in Canada. If CMVSS 114 did not exist they would look around for something else. The solution is harmonization of motor vehicle standards which Transport Canada have opposed to the detriment of taxpayers who pay their salaries.
Accordingly, I do not believe that it is simply the matter of an immobilizer or an absorber. People are flocking to the United States (in such numbers to buy the vehicle of their choice at a lower cost than is available in Canada) that Transport Canada had to change its position with respect to physically allowing purchasers of inadmissible cars into Canada last weekend because the Canada Border Service Agency was inundated at the Canadian Border crossings with so many people with cars that suddenly and unexpectedly had become inadmissible notwithstanding that the purchased had done the proper due diligence with respect to the admissibility of the car before they bought it. For example, most Fords were admissible last week, then on last weekend they became inadmissible. This also happened with a couple of other brands. Most GM’s have been inadmissible.
The following statistics compiled by The Registrar of Imported Vehicles (“RIV”) demonstrate the number of Canadians who may have been or will be affected by the unharmonized Transport Canada regulations:
Number of Canadians who bought U.S. vehicles last month. 25,000
Estimated number of Canadians who will buy a vehicle in the U.S. this year. 170,000
Previous record for number of Canadians buying U.S. vehicles. 112,000
Estimated number of vehicles purchased in the U.S. that will be new. 40%
Number of Canadians calling the registrar per day, looking for information on importing American cars. 5,000
Number of Canadians who called earlier this week, when the dollar hit $1.08 (U.S.) Source: Registrar of Imported Vehicles
The status of the harmonization initiative that started in 2002 is shown in the following table:
If above table does not appear, go to:
http://capcinfo.ca/english/reports/documents/2007/RegHarmon_e.pdf
The following is the Report of the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council June 2005:
Security and Prosperity Partnership Consultation
Vehicle Manufacturers in the North American Environment The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
Background:
In general, Canadian safety policy has a consistent structure with the U.S. policy. The Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) are largely similar to, and patterned after, the American Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), and flows naturally from the high level of integration in the industry. However, exceptions between the two nations' safety standards do exist with additional exceptions being contemplated.
In addition to the actual standards, differences exist between Canadian and American authorities with respect to how vehicle certification is undertaken to show compliance with those standards. Significant differences exist between government and industry regarding the extent to which engineering judgment and electronic simulation should be accommodated for vehicle certification and the level of documentation necessary to demonstrate full compliance. Transport Canada's position would appear to be significantly different than that of the U.S. NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) and is viewed by industry as an impediment to innovative practices to the testing and early commercialization of advanced technologies.
(1) CMVSS 208 - Frontal impact occupant protection standards
Issue:
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.
Industry has formally requested data from Transport Canada that supports the need for different belted occupant standards for chest deflection in Canada than in the US. (chest deflection is one component of this amendment).
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 approx 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.
The goal is to harmonize the requirements of CMVSS 208 with the equivalent belted requirements of US regulation FMVSS 208.
(3) CMVSS 215 - Bumpers
Issue:
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 t
I spoke with Robert Lamb this morning and he is asking that we send him a copy of the export notice to his email address at rlamb@videotron.ca. He is gathering the info to support his arguments that while the minister of Transport Mr Cannon is saying one thing publicly regarding addressing this problem for those of us who purchased a vehicle that was later deemed inadmissible, while his department agency (RIV) is now kicking these vehilces out of the country. The sooner you can send him your notice the better. I have already sent him mine.
From the events of the past several weeks, I sense that with all the finger pointing between TC and the RIV that there is a lot of bad blood that has built up between them and probably boiled over last Friday when the TC scolded the RIV in a conference call. In response, the RIV is probably simply following due process and issuing export notices for any and all vehicles currently listed as inadmissible. It cannot be a coincidence that we started receiving these export notices starting last Friday. Has anyone else received one and when was it dated?
netdog
If it is a Sport, Limited or Hybrid, you should be fine. These three versions all have an immobilizer. It is only the base where it is optional.
Issue:
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.
There is no evidence that 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. As a result the difference in regulatory standards should be eliminated, and given Canada's market size, the U.S. standards should be adopted.
(6) Additional list of unique Canadian requirements:
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
End of exerpt from Report of the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council June 2005 The complete Report can be found at:
http://capcinfo.ca/english/reports/report_jun28_05.html#impact
A period of two years elapsed between the 2005 and 2007 Reports with not only little progress being made towards harmonization but Transport Canada creating further obstacles to harmonization as evidenced by the intransigence of Transport Canada with their immobilizer standard.
Auto manufacturers all attempt to control inventories by regions whether it be Canada or the U.S. The problem is that Canadian taxpayers we are paying for Transport Canada to create barriers that enable the manufacturers to charge Canadians more than an American who may live less than 60 miles from the Canadian Border. The destination charge
They were charging a premium when the dollar was below par. Two years ago the US dollar was at C$1.25, now at, say .C.95 an increase in foreign exchange profit for the auto manufacturers.
You may be interested in the following articles which appeared in the Globe and Mail:
Cars face border roadblock
GREG KEENAN
From Friday's Globe and Mail
November 9, 2007 at 1:05 AM EST
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071109.wrtheft09/BNStory/B- usiness/home/
Exerpts:
“- The problem is a Transport Canada regulation that requires 2008 vehicles to have a device that deters car thieves, something known as a theft immobilizer.
- “I was going to pay cash,” said Mr. Patterson, a software developer for Research In Motion Ltd. “I had some money stashed away for a rainy day.”
- He was also going to save more than $30,000. That's based on a price of $72,290 after a $5,500 rebate in Atlantic City, compared with $102,130 (Canadian) – including options – he figured on paying for the high-end Z06 model in Canada.
- The Canadian anti-theft requirement, meanwhile, has auto makers seeing red because they have been pushing Ottawa for years to harmonize our regulations with those south of the border and not introduce standards that apply only in this country.
- Some auto makers are not installing the devices in cars built for the U.S. market, are putting them only on selected vehicles, or installing systems that don't meet the Transport Canada standards. (Auto makers say there is no after-market kit for installing the devices that will meet the Canadian regulation.)
= Vehicles without the immobilizer systems are banned from importation into Canada by the Registrar of Imported Vehicles, the Transport Canada department that decides which cars and trucks are allowed in.
= (By filing with Transport Canada that most of their vehicles are not admissible for importation) GM Canada is simply complying with the Canadian regulation, said spokesman Stew Low.
- “The other question is why Transport Canada has chosen to continue a path of unique Canadian standards and not worked to harmonize standards across North America,” Mr. Low said.”
- The number of Canadians heading south to buy a car appears to be growing daily, according to the Registrar of Imported Vehicles. Here's a breakdown:
Number of Canadians who bought U.S. vehicles last month. 25,000
Estimated number of Canadians who will buy a vehicle in the U.S. this year. 170,000
Previous record for number of Canadians buying U.S. vehicles. 112,000
Estimated number of vehicles purchased in the U.S. that will be new. 40%
Number of Canadians calling the registrar per day, looking for information on importing American cars. 5,000
Number of Canadians who called earlier this week, when the dollar hit $1.08 (U.S.) 7,000
Source: Registrar of Imported Vehicles”
The Comments which the Globe had included the following:
“P Stevens from Toronto, Canada writes: Seems like many here are torn. No one wants to pay more for any product...a few dollars perhaps, but 30 or 40% more NOT A CHANCE. I don't care who you are. Some of the posts here are nationalistic, the -buy-at-home-to-save-jobs types when in fact many of the vehicles you pay that 30-40% premium are made in the USA or offshore. A perfect example is the Toyota Matrix made in Cambridge Ontario...same car here not only costs more for Delivery (660 in USA vs 1200 in Canada) BUT also costs almost 30% more....yet its built right next door to us!!?!?! The balance are those are jealouse of those that have the means to save a buck, made the trip to the USA after doins some research and now are suffering over a standard that is frivilous and does nothing to improve safety, no matter what some of the posters beleive. Think about it if I can't get your car started maybe I break into your house and hurt you for the keys, OR I carjack you, a false sense of security is still a false sense of
“P Stevens from Toronto, Canada writes: Seems like many here are torn. No one wants to pay more for any product...a few dollars perhaps, but 30 or 40% more NOT A CHANCE. I don't care who you are. Some of the posts here are nationalistic, the -buy-at-home-to-save-jobs types when in fact many of the vehicles you pay that 30-40% premium are made in the USA or offshore. A perfect example is the Toyota Matrix made in Cambridge Ontario...same car here not only costs more for Delivery (660 in USA vs 1200 in Canada) BUT also costs almost 30% more....yet its built right next door to us!!?!?! The balance are those are jealouse of those that have the means to save a buck, made the trip to the USA after doins some research and now are suffering over a standard that is frivilous and does nothing to improve safety, no matter what some of the posters beleive. Think about it if I can't get your car started maybe I break into your house and hurt you for the keys, OR I carjack you, a false sense of security is still a false sense of security. The idea of Standards is to standardize...why is this so illogicial...many cars sold already have immobilizers, why a special high tech one for Canada that is COSTLY when we have 10-20 million cars on the road WITHOUT an immobilizer, perhaps now the car thieves will steal more older vehicles, impacting the less well off. See no matter how you spin it someone loses with standards that aren't standardized in the world market...and I am not saying that we abandon all standards either, but geeze commons sense says that if I implement a special made in Canada policy it will directly impact future car buyers who want choice and who we already allow to import vehicles.... Basically the government morons that created this standard ensure we lose the right to import any vehicles produced after 2008!?!?!? Give it 10 years and no more vehicle imports from anywhere,perhaps the vehicle manufacturers didn't really push this as they could see the PROFIT on the wall too!!
• Posted 20/11/07 at 9:37 AM EST”
Buyers of barred cars can drive home, but no farther
GREG KEENAN AND STEVEN CHASE
November 20, 2007
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071120.RCARS20/TPStory/?quer- y=
Exerpts:
“ - Buyers of new vehicles that lack the proper theft immobilization device may now import them, but must park these cars or trucks until Transport Canada finds a permanent solution to the regulatory snafu that prompted the ban. The reprieve may be temporary and the ban put back in place, Transport Canada spokesman Patrick Charette said Monday, but for now Mr. Hill, Mr. Perry and others are allowed to bring their vehicles home.
- “But that doesn't solve the issue,” Mr. Charette cautioned. “If their vehicle is not admissible, they will not be able to plate their vehicle and it's not a guarantee that their vehicle will be allowed permanent importation and licensing in Canada.”
- Ottawa banned vehicles sold by several manufacturers in the United States because they didn't have theft devices that met a new standard established by Transport Canada for vehicles manufactured after Sept. 1. The ban was rescinded after the Canadian Border Services Agency raised the problem of cars being denied entry to Canada, Mr. Charette said.
= Blocking U.S. vehicles because of the theft immobilization devices “is discriminatory to Canadians as it is allowing automobile manufacturers to maintain their high pricing structure for new cars in Canada,” said Mr. Hill, a Calgary financial consultant who bought a 2008 Sienna last month. “This is either collusion or unintended consequences.”
- Several auto makers have pointed out that they actually opposed the change in the regulation on theft immobilizers, that discussion of the change first started more than four years ago and that the timing of the new regulation accidentally coincided with the rise in the Canadian dollar.
- The list of banned vehicles was broadened last week to include 2008 models manufactured after Sept. 1 and sold in the United States by Ford Motor Co. [F-N], Hyundai Motor Co. and Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd. All 2008 General Motors Corp. [GM-N] models, several Honda Motor Co. Ltd. vehicles and about half of the Toyota Motor Corp. [TM-N] lineup are also affected.”
I hope the foregoing has been of help in understanding why Canadians have to pay more when they attempt to purchase a car in Canada.
For the benefit of the RAV / Highlander group, and other Toyota / Lexus / Scion buyers for that matter, can I suggest again that someone try looking at the technical info site for Toyota? Given that we know some models have a CMVSS compliant immobilizer, it should be possible to compare part numbers and determine if the part is the same across other "non-compliant" models or not. Here's the link:
link title
Anyone can use the system -- you don't need to be an employee of Toyota.
The cost is as follows:
Day - $10 US
Month - $50 US
Year - $350 US
Good luck! And if someone is successful in researching this, please share for the benefit of the group and Robert Lamb's "Cars without Borders" organization.
2. When leaving the US, you check-in with US export control. They give you the title and check to make sure it matches the car's VIN.
3. You go to Canada Customs and declare that you are importing the vehicle. You go inside, pay your GST, duty and A/C tax, etc. They prepare FORM 1, which is then faxed to RIV.
4. RIV will e-mail, mail or allow you to pick-up FORM 2. To get it e-mailed, you need to call them with your case # (listed on top of FORM 2).
5. With FORM 2 in hand, you get the vehicle inspected at Canadian Tire. They either approve and stamp FORM 2, or let you know what modifications need to be done. If modifications are required, you have to get them done and have the vehicle re-inspected. If the modifications are acceptable, FORM 2 gets stamped and faxed to RIV.
6. With the stamped FORM 2, you go to the Provinical Ministry of Transportation office and get your plate and provincial registration.
7. RIV sends you a sticker to put on the car indicating that it has been imported and all is good.
8. Laugh about how much you have saved...
Price in US: 26100. That is LE + power doors + alloy wheels + mudguards + convinience package. That was a price I got witout negotiating with a dealer. That is price on the road. Dealer went throug all paperwork, but last minute got a call from Toyota US telling them that if they will sell it, then they'll loose licence.
Price in Canada: 37000$. That is MSRP: 37225 + 1400(PDI) - 1000(Rebate)-625(dealer discount).
26100 + tax(13%) = 29754
37000+tax(13%) = 42180.
Add 1000 expense to get car from US.
Event negotite 1000 her less from the deler.
Where is my misinformation?
But when I ran the numbers I found, as freshtunes indicated, that the comparison was based on US MSRP vs. a Canadian very hard bargaining deal. The real cash price in the US would have been lower with some bargaining.
If you suceeded in getting only $1,000 off the MSRP of $26,733 in the US, after excise tax, PST and GST the comparative price would have been $1,200 less so the savings would have been $3,200. If you could beat the US dealer down by $2,000, the savings would have been $4,400.
2007 AND 2008 RAV4 (sport and base models) built after September 1st, 2007 (see notes)
2007 AND 2008 RAV-4 Limited
2008 Highlander Sport
2008 Highlander HV
2008 4Runner
2008 Highlander Limited
2007 AND 2008 Highlander (base model) built after September 1st, 2007 (see notes)
So no see notes section in front of RAV limted. I hope this does mean that RAv limited do not need letter too.
with all due respect...
netdog
go to www.riv.ca, click on recall clearance letter, then go to the bottom and click on consult the contact information list. Go to Honda contact info, and you will find the web info for the Honda owners link recall letter. If riv has this info on their website i'm sure they would except the letter in lieu of the Manufactures recall clearance letter. I spoke to them and they said they would except it.
http://www.thestar.com/article/278716
Thanks.
and another thing please lern to use the spelcheck the cap key your posts are very hard to read as well as understand
She said I could however get a letter of compliance from Toyota.
When she became aware in our discussion that I was fully informed with copies of the amnesty letter and October VAFUS she told me to fax copies of the info and my story to TC
I'll keep everbody posted but it doesn't look good to me for a resolution anytime soon.
I think that how people choose to spend their time is their own business and it is not necessarily the best use of your own time telling them how to spend theirs.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
I agree, I would be happy to spend an extra $4,000-$5,000 and by a car in Canada. The reality is I'm not retarded and will not spend an extra >$10,000 just to line the pockets of a wealthy Canadian car dealer. Get a grip loser. My wife and I both earn over $100k and could easily afford to by a new car here but we're not stupid. The money I save on buying a car in the US can go towards my sons education, although that's not necessary as we max out his RESP each year. No, maybe we'll just take a nice vacation to Florida or California with the money we save. Get a grip on things pal.
There were 25,000 imports in Oct..... double that of Oct. 06. Thats 25,000 people that apparently don't have the infinate wisdom you have.
"so for a little short term gain you are screwing us with long term pain"
Nope, it's people like yourself that use the Canadian socialist system to the point of abuse that screw us all.
"as all of you dont have the cash saved up to go risk it in the states. 98 percent of you will use borrowed money and call it cash"
Ahhh! Finally, I see where you are coming from............ you are jealous of those who choose to work harder / smarter than you to get ahead. And by the way, some of us do have the cash to pay for a new luxury vehicle. Don't worry, I am sure the decrease in value for Canadian market cars won't affect your prize Plymouth K-Car.
I would ask this because the Transport Canada website identifies that " as part of the RIV inspection the IMPORTER will be required to supply documentation to prove that the vehicle came with a factory installed system that complies with CMVSS 114 OR that a recognized aftermarket system that meets the intent of CMVSS 114, has been installed."
CMVSS 114 was introduced in 2005 to comply with the National Standard of Canada ULC S338/98. Go to the ICBC web site and you will see that there are four (4) after market systems that they (IBC) recognize as meeting the standard.
RIV simply CANNOT be told by Toyota how to interperate Transport Canada Regulations. If Toyota won't provide you with a letter of compliance then get your importer to write one based on it being on your equipment list/invoice or get one of the 4 approved aftermarket devises installed with a letter from the installer stating same.
Regards
Rod M1
That being said, everyone who has imported or tried to import their vehicles using the rules in place at the time of purchase MUST bang their MPs over the head with it until they get it and they communicate same in no uncertain terms to Cannon.
I've now demanded a face-to-face meeting with my MP.
"ADMISSIBLE VEHICLES:
A vehicle manufactured after September 1, 2007 (may be a 2007 or a 2008 model) is ADMISSIBLE if:
1) The vehicle is listed in the "ADMISSIBLE" column of the List of Vehicles Admissible from the United States. This means that it
is manufacturer-equipped (standard) with an electronic immobilization system that meets the requirements of CMVSS 114.
2) The vehicle is listed in the "ADMISSIBLE" column of the List of Vehicles Admissible from the United States but is followed
by "~" and/or "(see notes)". This means that the vehicle does not come standard with an electronic immobilization system that
meets the requirements of CMVSS 114, but either:
a. An electronic immobilization system that meets the requirements of CMVSS 114 is available as a manufacturer option. In this
case, it must be factory-installed; it is NOT possible to install the system after market, because the manufacturer will not be
able to ensure that it complies with CMVSS 114.
When an electronic immobilization system that meets the requirements of CMVSS 114 is available as a manufacturer option,
the importer must provide a letter from the manufacturer stating that the vehicle meets the CMVSS 114.
Moral of the story:
If you do have "see notes" section you need letter. & if you don't have "see notes" section. YOU JUST DO NOT NEED LETTER. call RIV yourself.
Anyway I was informed , in passing, that they were in the process of issuing over 3,000 form 2's and that I should be patient and expect it sometime in the next few days. In my opinion, if it takes them 2 minutes to review the file and issue the form 2 it looks as though they will process 30 forms per man-hour so we are looking at 100 man hours to clear this little backlog - if true. That's about 15 days work for 1 person. I hope they feel they can provide the resources to enable more than one person to process these forms. If they take 4 minutes per file you can double the time frame.
It is going to be interesting to see what the time frames are - or if the story is just a line.
Above is a quote from the Mastergard site. So in 9 years of using an FMVSS compliant immobilizer there has never been theft due to the defeat of an immobilizer.
And now we need a unique CMVSS standard. :surprise: I think I need a drink
were in the acceptable column but this evening the revised list is longer there.
Try as I might I cannot find the RAV4 acceptance.
Please help!!!
But can we expect that TC will keep the list unchanged in the coming few weeks.............now hopefully i can bring my CAMRY 2008 in CANADA without compliance letter .
Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks again for your input.
I have tried on three computers in this house and cannot get to the revised version showing the RAV 4 acceptance. I know I had this morning. Please give me the link. Thanks.
Last thing - papers, TC say 1000 cars without borders then why would RIV say they have 3000 to do. I suspect the numbers are much..much higher.
Cheers
Cheers
Cheers
The best advice I can give to everyone is do your research and make decisions based on what works best for you. Many want to wait it out and see what RIV does. Many think that dealerships will drop their prices further. For myself, I saw an opportunity to buy well below the MSRP, have full warranty, have a Canadian vehicle that will be easier to trade in/resell at a later date and a truck to have for the upcoming winter. I personally believe that the manufacturers will put more of a strangle hold and we may not see these rebates for very much longer.... I could be wrong though
Studies used in the 2003-2004 CMVSS114 showed a 50% decline in auto thefts in Immobilizer equipped autos. Newly introduced systems would be very effective until thief education ramped up in a matter of months. IBC/ICBC recommendations to go with home grown after market systems would result in innovation and change that would be of more benefit in the long run. Standards set in stone are easily identified and just as easily defeated. A given model produced for four years will have an immobilizer associated with it, defeat one and you have the key to all of them.
We are all exhausted and I agree if the differrence was $2-3000, I would have bought in Canada but not at $10,000 difference - I have grandchildren and I can buy exactly like others have said :education savings plans for my grandchildren.
For those who have registered on carswithoutborders.com, we have seen the results, the post - the problems - we are close to 50 so far, we have people in all parts of the country. On the weekend I will give an update say by car model, by province - and statistics like that. I beleive it is important to know that we are not alone. We have our team volunteers analysing the new VFAS and also looking at immobilizers. We are improving the web site. We are scrambling for time, as we have full time jobs, but this whole issue is too important to just let go. We are keeping the pressure. Please register your story, your vehicle (confidentiality is very important to us all).
WE FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES
www.carswithoutborders.com