I have a Cadillac EXT 2008 production date prior to September 1st 2007 at a dealer in the US .... will be arranging to pick this up Am I right to think this is admissable for importing subject to the VAFUS list ?
A growing number of vehicle manufacturers are declaring that they will install electronic immobilizers meeting the National Standard of Canada ULC-S338/98 – when the installation of anti-theft electronic immobilizers in cars, vans, light trucks and SUVs becomes mandatory in September 2007. --------------- ULC-S338 applies to both manufacturer-installed systems, installed in new cars, and after-market systems intended for installation in older vehicles or new vehicles that don’t have an approved manufacturer-installed system as standard equipment.
Manufacturers may self-certify that their system meets ULC-S338 and that they will comply with the performance testing, subject to audit by IBC.
After-market systems If your car does not have an electronic immobilizer, you can get one from an after-market supplier. IBC currently recognizes four after-market systems as meeting the National Standard of Canada ULC-S338/98:
PFK Autowatch 329 Ti Immobilizer PFK Autowatch 573 PPi Immobilizer MasterGard M6000 Immobilizer Powerlock-Canada Immobilizer To work properly, these systems must be installed according to the Installation Protocol ULC/ORD 275.1.
Interesting, but less than useful information: The reference to security features for 2008 Buick Enclave (the vehicle I have essentially ordered via Florida dealer, but may need to back out of) on the Canadian website and the US website are near identical... Canadian site has " Ignition Disable - PASS-Key III+" whereas the US site has "PASS-Key III, engine immobilizer". The descriptions are markedly similar but different and funny enough the US description reads more directly compliant than the Canadian one.
The Canadian site has been revised since I last looked a couple of weeks ago... it could indicate a co-ordinated effort to support inadmissibility.
At this point I have asked if I can exit my US car deal (vehicle factory ordered for mid Dec delivery) on the basis of an unfavourable clarification from RIV / Transport Canada. The dealer I'm working with has been inundated with Canadian calls.
Let's see, I can get the 2008 Toyota Sienna LE for $10,000 less in the US than in Canada. But I can't bring it in because it lacks an anti-theft device. So if I buy in Canada, I'm paying $10,000 for this anti-theft device. That's a pretty expensive device! Will the next step be that I can't buy a house unless it has a complete monitored alarm system? I have a lead on a used 2008 Sienna LE in the US manufactured before Sept. 1. But I don't dare close the deal until after this press conference, in case the rules change for the pre-Sept. 1 vehicles. Is this a real fear? I'll probably lose the chance to buy this in a few days. I suspect pre-Sept. 1 Siennas are disappearing in the US like hotcakes.
No. There are 2 Section 5's. One for vehicles manufactured BEFORE Sept 1, 2007 and one for AFTER September 1, 2007. This revision to the VAFUS occured on Nov 1.
For your EXT, if you look at pg.19, you are manufactured before Sept. 1, 2007, but all 2008 GM vehicles are still shown as inadmissible according to this section.
I can't comment on purchase date and list revisions. It seems others here have ammnesty. others have not. others still have had them revoked. Scarry.
The IBC web site sites that you can add on of their sanctioned 3rd party devices over the existing manufacturer's no problem.....
Qoute from the site: I already have an alarm in my car. Can I have an IBC-approved immobilizer installed as well? Yes. IBC-approved immobilizers can be installed in vehicles with pre-existing alarm systems. In fact, an additional content theft protection system such as an audible alarm, or a tracking system, when installed in vehicles with IBC-approved immobilizers, provides an additional layer of theft protection.
The manufacturer Honda America . I have not seen it in writing refuses to allow you to install a Compliant immobilizer on top of a honda non-compliant one.
TC, in its infinite wisdom, left two loopholes big enough to drive a truck through in the version of CMVSS 114 which took effect Sept 1.
First off, the full text of CMVSS 114 is here: link title (Quick! Before it's changed)
First, take a look at 1.1. It clearly states that 114 applies to vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 4536 kg (about 10,000 lbs) and below. So a truck with a GVWR of 4537 kg would 'technically' be exempt.
Second, take a look at Section 7. It specifically exempts 'Emergency Vehicles'. So all those police-package Impalas, Crown Victorias and Dodge Chargers built post Sept 1, 2007 are 'technically' exempt. Shades of a lobbying effort by the 'public safety' crowd wanting to keep the cost of their fleet purchases down, perhaps?
Hi there ..please Email me at Cobrar543@YAHOO.COM and I can better answer your questions without letting the dealers know much more about us. But we are sending 25 a week to Canada now thru Montana. And we have no sales tax
Guys - I know some won't like what I am saying here. Stop discussing the technical aspect of 114 and where it came from etc. and WRITE to your MP's to fix up this mess. This is the way to get action and action will be happening this week. Let's make sure Transport Canada fix it right. I just read about 30 posts (sorry caramel) on this and I think we (you) are losing the momentum. We need Transport Canada - to fix the RIV and they need to fix the car companies. Please write - in a day or two we may have lost the opportunity to change our future.
Post 1649 - I just talked to Robert Lamb and he is very putting together all the stories and building the case to help us all . If you have purchased and are stuck with this problem , Contact him and he can help - he is working with the Gazette Reporter also. Aussi il parle francais pour ceux que ca interesse.
I'm trying to import an Enclave as well. Were you able to get clarificatication from General Motors/Buick USA or Canada as to whether or not this vehicle is admissable to Canada? Is it just the engine immobilizer that is the problem?? Do you have the contact email address for Buick? My email is dibillwa@porchlight.ca I saw a 2008 enclave that was imported at an Ontario dealer's lot last week. I'm assuming that it passed the RIV and TC requirements somehow so there is hope.
'After-market systems If your car does not have an electronic immobilizer, you can get one from an after-market supplier. IBC currently recognizes four after-market systems as meeting the National Standard of Canada ULC-S338/98:
PFK Autowatch 329 Ti Immobilizer PFK Autowatch 573 PPi Immobilizer MasterGard M6000 Immobilizer Powerlock-Canada Immobilizer To work properly, these systems must be installed according to the Installation Protocol ULC/ORD 275.1. '
Have you or anyone else ckecked with RIV to see if the instalation is made, then we are clear to bring the vehicles into Canada? or have the instalation done during that 45 day period?
maluna (wanting to import an 08 Toyota Highlander)
GM will not allow dealer's to sell to Anyone without a US address, they have even gone so far as to set up teams of auditor's that are serching for any address or name that has bought more then 3 vehicles. ANY dealer caught doing so can have there lisence revoked and the vehicle sold have its warrenty canceled as a fraud purchase. Buy used for your own piece of mind and save a ton. Email me at Cobrar543@yahoo.com and I will give you some information that will make your purchase easier.
You should be fine, IF your vehicle has been registered prior to it crossing the boarder. GM will allow NO MSO's to be sent from the dealerships to anyone but court houses now.
The problem is determining the specific reason for not being admissible. The issue of the immobilizer is conjecture. When I tried to find out why the 2008 Prius is on the inadmissibility list I found RIV, TC and Toyota Canada and Toyota USA refused to be specific about why. My feeling is that the immobilizer is the issue although no-one will admit to it. As I understand it, the other causes of failing the admissibility requirements are the bumper standards, tethers for infants and DRL's. These issues have generally been dealt with by providing a conditional admissibility subject to these items being corrected by the importer.
Just talked to RIV they told me the Rav4 and Highlander is admissible ONLY ONLY ONLY with the factory immobilizer AND letter of compliance.No third party immobilizers allowed as per Toyotas instructions. No compliance letter = not addmissable This is the statement I got today. Will try for a different answer tomorrow
My husband and I were hoping to go buy a Toyota Tacoma in Sacramento in two weeks. Now after reading all of these posts I am even more confused about the whole situation.I am assuming that after tuesday's announcement things will be more clarified, but in the mean time I have a few questions that I hope someone can answer. Will I be okay if I make sure this truck is made before sept 07, or if I purchase and 07 rather than an 08. Also in regards to using a relative's address to purchase how exactly does it work to eventually transfer the truck into our name, and is it better if that relative's address is not in the same state that we will be purchasing the truck from? All of these posts are alot of information to process, is it correct that even if the "right" immobilizer is installed after you bring it into canada, that Toyota will still not recognize it??? Help me understand a little better before we go ahead and do this please!
Just wondered if you had any luck importing that Highlander? Please inform how did you get along with the CMVSS 114 compliance documentation? (referring to post #1480)
Serge, thanks for keeping the immobilizer issue front and centre.
I too fell victim to this immobilizer issue after purchasing my Sienna in mid-October only to find out that it had been deemed inadmissible on Nov 1st. I had confirmed the vehicle's admissibility several times by phone and by email so this came as a real shock. Then last week things got better after hearing about RIV's amnesty so I went ahead and booked a flight to pick up the vehicle, renewed my passport, got insurance, etc on this past Friday and just for good measure, I put another call into RIV just to double-check their hours of operation.... and then whammo - they hit me over the head with the news about no more amnesty - with or w/o an exemption letter. Major bummer!
Things are so fluid right now and changing every other day on this admissibility issue so I will not cancel my deal until/unless I've weathered this storm and there is nothing left for me to do. I am anxiously waiting for TC's announcement this week on the matter; it will either bring common sense to this total nonsense or it will be the nail in the coffin for many of us stuck in the same boat.
What I find reassuring in this whole matter is that I cannot immagine that the RIV/TC would apply a different safety standard for dealers than for the rest of us, which begs the question "How will dealers be able to import these inadmissible vehicles?". If the manufacturers are equipping them with a canadian-standard immobilizer at the plant or otherwise, this would suggest that it is in fact possible to install after-market immobilizers on them to meet canadian standards and that TC will see through this ploy and allow them in as admissible requiring modification. If on the other hand, it is TC and not the manufacturers that are recognizing these vehicles as inadmissible then we could be in trouble as TC may use this announcement to flex its political mustle to force manufacturers to comply with the new regulations. And if TC applies a single standard of admissibility across the board then that should keep these vehicles off the canadian dealers' lots and you can imagine the fallout if that ever happened.
One way or another, I think in the end that common sense will prevail and we will succeed in getting this mess cleaned up. Just hope its sooner than later.
Hi mottie, So what so you make of the EXPLANATIONS section of RIV website: http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/Explanations.htm Check out number 9. And check out the BOLD type.... it does say the word 'or'. Here it is: " As part of the RIV inspection, the importer will be required to supply documentation to prove that the vehicle came equipped 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."
How are we able to determine if the manufacturer Toyota, is even capable of including it in the vehicle?! I would ask Toyota for that clarification- and in writing!
I am now totally confused ... as the list has changed .... thought 2008's prior to Sept 1, 2007 were admissible ... vehicle is across the boarder in the US have not brought it across because the regulations keep changing - NOV 1st .... What next
I live in Alberta looking forward to bring a tundra back from south. Do you mind email me the dealer phone # and the info you are willing to share. Thanks a lot. My email: navpac@gmail.com
Hi Maluna;I ran the "or an approved third party immobilizer" by them and the reply from RIV was"the Highlander,Rav4 and the Yaris specifically say:Only admissible with a factory immobilizer and a letter of compliance."No other vehicles on the list,passenger car or suv make this statement. So,the way i understand it is you can put a third party immobilizer on some post Sept /07 vehicles but NOT a RAV4 Highlander or Yaris
I am in the same boat as you. Told many times it was admissible, went ahead and bought it (2008 Cadillac Escalade), then list changes and told not admissible, then told that an exception would be made, then told that exception is revoked and no longer admissible. My head is starting to spin.
Like you I do believe that common sense will prevail.
I would be very interested to know how many people bought vehicles that were admissible prior to Nov1 that have now become inadmissible.
The car dealers in Canada know too well about this and this practice is threatening their profit margins. These wealthy people of course can harbour the lawmakers / politicians to their advantage easily. As soon as you guys get over one hurdle they are prepared to you another bigger hurdles.
I think the bottom line is Canadian govt has to meet with Canadian car dealers to curb their profit margin and price in line with the USA's. Naturally no more Canadian want to buy their car down south any more.
I am the same ... Cadillac EXT (pre Sept. 1, 2007) bought and sits because the rules keep changing and I do not want to be at the border trying to figure out which regulation is in force for that day ....
Re Buick Enclave admissibility... this vehicle, like the rest of GM 2008's, is caught up in the revised VAFUS confusion... I have been dealing with a US Dealership only and interpreting the VAFUS info as well as reading about the experiences of others in this Forum. Until Transport Canada clarifies their position, I think we are in limbo. Based on specifications, the Buick Enclave meets all Transport Canada requirements except for the bilingual air bag warnings and the speedometer/odometer (it has daytime running lights even in US trim). I have refrained from emailing GM until the situation is more concrete.
In reading some of the recent posts here, I wonder if we (including myself) are clear on what "inadmissible" means. To me, I take this as: "I'm sorry, we will not allow you to take this vehicle across the border." or " We will not allow you to export this vehicle from the United States." or "No, we will not allow you to import this vehicle into Canada."
IMHO the VAFUS list is exactly what the title says. "LIST OF VEHICLES ADMISSIBLE FROM THE UNITED STATES - THIS LIST HAS BEEN COMPILED TO ASSIST IMPORTERS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A U.S. SPECIFICATION VEHICLE IS ADMISSIBLE FOR IMPORTATION INTO CANADA."
I have been assuming that when you pull up at the border, someone checks the infamous VAFUS list and says (for example): " I'm sorry, your 2008 GM is not permitted into cross. Bye." Regardless if you plan to have whatever modifications you assume to be required (since no one has defined WHY all these vehicles are non-compliant, we have only been assuming, and logically so, that it's the immobilizer) for the RIV inspection. It won't matter because your 2008 GM is INADMISSIBLE - as in no admission. It shouldn't matter if you have the immobilizer and DRL's and the magic carpet installed before you try to cross the border. No is no.
Am I assuming this correctly? If so, if in checking the VAFUS list you see your desired vehicle as inadmissible, then the story ends for you right there (barring future revisions). No?
Does anyone know the manufacturer's email address? A friend is looking at getting a Cayenne in US and on the RIV site, it mentioned to call the manufacturer to find out if it is admissible for import to Canada. I tried google but did not get any. Can anyone help?
Can you send me the lists. Bought/paid for a GM pick up Oct 29/07, built in early August/07.Vehicle still at dealership. Don't know if I'll get turned back at border or not.Every time I phone Riv I get a different answer. One time they say if bought prior to Nov 1st then O.K. Next time if built prior Sept1 st its O.K, next time its not admissable.What the "H" gives with these guys ? send dejavu147@gmail.com Tks!
Prior to Sept 01 2007 CMVSS 114 stated that FMVSS 114 was in compliance. On Sept 01 2007 newly amended CMVSS114 made FMVSS 114 non compliant. With a stroke of a pen Transport Canada opened to door wide to abuse of CMVSS114 by the mfrs. As soon as the trickle across the border became a stream and threatens to become an avalanche the mfrs started to flog CMVSS114 to death. Can you blame them, TC added $4,000 to $40,000 to the cost of a car for every Canadian purchaser once the mfrs agreed to exploit their good fortune. The one and only solution is for TC to amend CMVSS114 and state therein that FMVSS 114 is compliant. A stroke of the pen gave. A stroke of the pen takes away. Not the least bit complicated the technical work has been done the issues are known. Just do it and do it now.
Hope this is helpful to anyone looking at importing from the US. I created a really basic calculator that allows you to enter the US purchase price, select your Province and it figures out the total cost of bringing in the car.
Looks like I don't have enough posts to insert URLs. The site is at importacartocanada.com
This site is VERY basic, but ad-free and, well, free. I created it simply because I couldn't find a simple resource online for crunching these numbers.
Easy answer to that is to look at the posts on this group. The US dealers will say whatever you want to get a deal. The US manufacturer will give you a recall letter. Border Services could not care less if you bring the vehicle into the country. Canadian Tire can pass you on an inspection. Your province can give your vehicle a clean bill of health. Your insurance company can provide you insurance. RIV/TC can retro-actively declare your car inadmissible and order you to destroy or export. ie it can come in, but it may not be allowed to stay.
Does you know for a fact that the RIV can retro-actively make you export a car that has already gone through the entire inspecion process and has been licenced and plated and received the decal indicating "this vehicle has passed all Canadian Safety standards"? I was under the impression that once a car made it through the process, they would not (or could not) force you to export it. They could however refuse a form 2 etc if you have not completed the process (i.e. Robert Lamb). I personally have not heard of any instances of this happening yet. I'm interested to find out if anyone has, as even if people have "made it through" with a amnesty letter etc. that could mean nothing.
Comments
two r's .... and thanks for getting back to me
Am I right to think this is admissable for importing subject to the VAFUS list ?
---------------
ULC-S338 applies to both manufacturer-installed systems, installed in new cars, and after-market systems intended for installation in older vehicles or new vehicles that don’t have an approved manufacturer-installed system as standard equipment.
Manufacturers may self-certify that their system meets ULC-S338 and that they will comply with the performance testing, subject to audit by IBC.
After-market systems
If your car does not have an electronic immobilizer, you can get one from an after-market supplier. IBC currently recognizes four after-market systems as meeting the National Standard of Canada ULC-S338/98:
PFK Autowatch 329 Ti Immobilizer
PFK Autowatch 573 PPi Immobilizer
MasterGard M6000 Immobilizer
Powerlock-Canada Immobilizer
To work properly, these systems must be installed according to the Installation Protocol ULC/ORD 275.1.
why TC do that stupid action...................?
The Canadian site has been revised since I last looked a couple of weeks ago... it could indicate a co-ordinated effort to support inadmissibility.
At this point I have asked if I can exit my US car deal (vehicle factory ordered for mid Dec delivery) on the basis of an unfavourable clarification from RIV / Transport Canada. The dealer I'm working with has been inundated with Canadian calls.
Will the next step be that I can't buy a house unless it has a complete monitored alarm system?
I have a lead on a used 2008 Sienna LE in the US manufactured before Sept. 1. But I don't dare close the deal until after this press conference, in case the rules change for the pre-Sept. 1 vehicles. Is this a real fear? I'll probably lose the chance to buy this in a few days. I suspect pre-Sept. 1 Siennas are disappearing in the US like hotcakes.
There is no such thing as a Canadian gallon - The is, however an Imperial Gallon and it is 4.546 litres
Correction to your correction. There is a Canadian gallon and it is approximately 0.999999560062 Imperial gallons.
For your EXT, if you look at pg.19, you are manufactured before Sept. 1, 2007, but all 2008 GM vehicles are still shown as inadmissible according to this section.
I can't comment on purchase date and list revisions. It seems others here have ammnesty. others have not. others still have had them revoked. Scarry.
Qoute from the site: I already have an alarm in my car. Can I have an IBC-approved immobilizer installed as well?
Yes. IBC-approved immobilizers can be installed in vehicles with pre-existing alarm systems. In fact, an additional content theft protection system such as an audible alarm, or a tracking system, when installed in vehicles with IBC-approved immobilizers, provides an additional layer of theft protection.
The manufacturer Honda America . I have not seen it in writing refuses to allow you to install a Compliant immobilizer on top of a honda non-compliant one.
TC, in its infinite wisdom, left two loopholes big enough to drive a truck through in the version of CMVSS 114 which took effect Sept 1.
First off, the full text of CMVSS 114 is here:
link title
(Quick! Before it's changed)
First, take a look at 1.1. It clearly states that 114 applies to vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 4536 kg (about 10,000 lbs) and below. So a truck with a GVWR of 4537 kg would 'technically' be exempt.
Second, take a look at Section 7. It specifically exempts 'Emergency Vehicles'. So all those police-package Impalas, Crown Victorias and Dodge Chargers built post Sept 1, 2007 are 'technically' exempt. Shades of a lobbying effort by the 'public safety' crowd wanting to keep the cost of their fleet purchases down, perhaps?
Thank you.
Do you have the contact email address for Buick? My email is dibillwa@porchlight.ca I saw a 2008 enclave that was imported at an Ontario dealer's lot last week. I'm assuming that it passed the RIV and TC requirements somehow so there is hope.
'After-market systems
If your car does not have an electronic immobilizer, you can get one from an after-market supplier. IBC currently recognizes four after-market systems as meeting the National Standard of Canada ULC-S338/98:
PFK Autowatch 329 Ti Immobilizer
PFK Autowatch 573 PPi Immobilizer
MasterGard M6000 Immobilizer
Powerlock-Canada Immobilizer
To work properly, these systems must be installed according to the Installation Protocol ULC/ORD 275.1. '
Have you or anyone else ckecked with RIV to see if the instalation is made, then we are clear to bring the vehicles into Canada? or have the instalation done during that 45 day period?
maluna (wanting to import an 08 Toyota Highlander)
Buy used for your own piece of mind and save a ton. Email me at Cobrar543@yahoo.com and I will give you some information that will make your purchase easier.
No compliance letter = not addmissable
This is the statement I got today.
Will try for a different answer tomorrow
Just wondered if you had any luck importing that Highlander? Please inform how did you get along with the CMVSS 114 compliance documentation?
(referring to post #1480)
maluna
I too fell victim to this immobilizer issue after purchasing my Sienna in mid-October only to find out that it had been deemed inadmissible on Nov 1st. I had confirmed the vehicle's admissibility several times by phone and by email so this came as a real shock. Then last week things got better after hearing about RIV's amnesty so I went ahead and booked a flight to pick up the vehicle, renewed my passport, got insurance, etc on this past Friday and just for good measure, I put another call into RIV just to double-check their hours of operation.... and then whammo - they hit me over the head with the news about no more amnesty - with or w/o an exemption letter. Major bummer!
Things are so fluid right now and changing every other day on this admissibility issue so I will not cancel my deal until/unless I've weathered this storm and there is nothing left for me to do. I am anxiously waiting for TC's announcement this week on the matter; it will either bring common sense to this total nonsense or it will be the nail in the coffin for many of us stuck in the same boat.
What I find reassuring in this whole matter is that I cannot immagine that the RIV/TC would apply a different safety standard for dealers than for the rest of us, which begs the question "How will dealers be able to import these inadmissible vehicles?". If the manufacturers are equipping them with a canadian-standard immobilizer at the plant or otherwise, this would suggest that it is in fact possible to install after-market immobilizers on them to meet canadian standards and that TC will see through this ploy and allow them in as admissible requiring modification. If on the other hand, it is TC and not the manufacturers that are recognizing these vehicles as inadmissible then we could be in trouble as TC may use this announcement to flex its political mustle to force manufacturers to comply with the new regulations. And if TC applies a single standard of admissibility across the board then that should keep these vehicles off the canadian dealers' lots and you can imagine the fallout if that ever happened.
One way or another, I think in the end that common sense will prevail and we will succeed in getting this mess cleaned up. Just hope its sooner than later.
Salut!
netdog
So what so you make of the EXPLANATIONS section of RIV website:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/Explanations.htm
Check out number 9. And check out the BOLD type.... it does say the word 'or'.
Here it is:
" As part of the RIV inspection, the importer will be required to supply documentation to prove that the vehicle came equipped 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."
How are we able to determine if the manufacturer Toyota, is even capable of including it in the vehicle?! I would ask Toyota for that clarification- and in writing!
This IS nuts!
Does this make any sense?
I live in Alberta looking forward to bring a tundra back from south. Do you mind email me the dealer phone # and the info you are willing to share. Thanks a lot. My email: navpac@gmail.com
Has anyone been told their exemption letter is revoked?
How can I contact to Robert Lamb?
So,the way i understand it is you can put a third party immobilizer on some post Sept /07 vehicles but NOT a RAV4 Highlander or Yaris
I am in the same boat as you. Told many times it was admissible, went ahead and bought it (2008 Cadillac Escalade), then list changes and told not admissible, then told that an exception would be made, then told that exception is revoked and no longer admissible. My head is starting to spin.
Like you I do believe that common sense will prevail.
I would be very interested to know how many people bought vehicles that were admissible prior to Nov1 that have now become inadmissible.
I think the bottom line is Canadian govt has to meet with Canadian car dealers to curb their profit margin and price in line with the USA's. Naturally no more Canadian want to buy their car down south any more.
I am waiting to see what happens this week ...
IMHO the VAFUS list is exactly what the title says. "LIST OF VEHICLES ADMISSIBLE FROM THE UNITED STATES - THIS LIST HAS BEEN COMPILED TO ASSIST IMPORTERS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A U.S. SPECIFICATION VEHICLE IS ADMISSIBLE FOR IMPORTATION INTO CANADA."
I have been assuming that when you pull up at the border, someone checks the infamous VAFUS list and says (for example): " I'm sorry, your 2008 GM is not permitted into cross. Bye." Regardless if you plan to have whatever modifications you assume to be required (since no one has defined WHY all these vehicles are non-compliant, we have only been assuming, and logically so, that it's the immobilizer) for the RIV inspection. It won't matter because your 2008 GM is INADMISSIBLE - as in no admission. It shouldn't matter if you have the immobilizer and DRL's and the magic carpet installed before you try to cross the border. No is no.
Am I assuming this correctly? If so, if in checking the VAFUS list you see your desired vehicle as inadmissible, then the story ends for you right there (barring future revisions). No?
Cheers.
With a stroke of a pen Transport Canada opened to door wide to abuse of CMVSS114 by the mfrs. As soon as the trickle across the border became a stream and threatens to become an avalanche the mfrs started to flog CMVSS114 to death. Can you blame them, TC added $4,000 to $40,000 to the cost of a car for every Canadian purchaser once the mfrs agreed to exploit their good fortune. The one and only solution is for TC to amend CMVSS114 and state therein that FMVSS 114 is compliant.
A stroke of the pen gave.
A stroke of the pen takes away.
Not the least bit complicated the technical work has been done the issues are known.
Just do it and do it now.
Looks like I don't have enough posts to insert URLs. The site is at importacartocanada.com
This site is VERY basic, but ad-free and, well, free. I created it simply because I couldn't find a simple resource online for crunching these numbers.
I was under the impression that once a car made it through the process, they would not (or could not) force you to export it. They could however refuse a form 2 etc if you have not completed the process (i.e. Robert Lamb).
I personally have not heard of any instances of this happening yet.
I'm interested to find out if anyone has, as even if people have "made it through" with a amnesty letter etc. that could mean nothing.