Importing - Why your getting blocked on 2008 models [Archive] - Beyond.ca - Car Forums

Toms-SC

11-06-2007, 01:11 AM

(CMVSS) Act 114 is what is stopping the import of most 2008 models. It deals with Locking and Immobilization Systems. You can read the full meal deal below.

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2005/20050309/html/sor45-e.html

There has got to be away around it. After market or otherwise. I'll have a better glance at it tomorrow.

Edit:

Transport Canada's official notice:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/Explanations.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Every Passenger vehicle, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and 3 wheeled vehicle manufactured after September 1, 2007 and with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) less than 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs), except an emergency vehicle or a walk-in van, must be equipped with an immobilization system that meets CMVSS 114.
While many vehicles manufactured for the United States market offer the electronic immobilization system as an option, there are some makes and models where this system is not available from the manufacturer. In many cases, an after market system that meets the intent of CMVSS114 can be installed by a third party. However you should check with the manufacturer to see if the installation of such an after market system compromises the vehicle warranty. Importers should check with the manufacturer to determine whether a vehicle is equipped or can be equipped with an electronic immobilization system that meets the intent of CMVSS 114, before purchasing and importing a vehicle.
Electronic immobilizers require a special key or small electronic device to start a vehicle's engine. Usually you attach this to your key ring.
This type of system, when activated, totally immobilizes engine systems in response to any attempt to start the vehicle without using an authorized key, by shutting off one or more parts of the engine's electrical system. This might include the starter, ignition or fuel system.
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.

Toms-SC

11-06-2007, 01:18 AM

Another forum found here with good information.

http://www.ivoac.ca/pn/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewforum&f=3

Ekliptix

11-06-2007, 01:37 AM

Thank you Tom!
I'll be exploring some possibilities.

rage2

11-06-2007, 08:22 AM

Unfortunately, if the 2008 vehicle is part of the INADMISSABLE list, you can't install an immobilizer and expect them to let the car in. It just WILL NOT happen.

If the vehicle is listed as ADMISSABLE, and it doesn't have an immobilizer, Form 2 will state that it requires you to install one (along with DRL, or whatever else to make it canadian compliant) in order to complete inspection and RIV program completion. That's what the "in many cases" is referring to... in the cases of vehicles that are deemed ADMISSABLE but doesn't have an immobilizer.

I've never ever once seen a vehicle in the INADMISSABLE list allowed in. Otherwise, there'd be a lot of EVO's here with modified bumpers.

Redlyne_mr2

11-06-2007, 09:26 AM

Yah that pretty much closes the door for anyone bringing in an 08..this was part of the email i got the other day. thanks for posting Tom.

A790

11-06-2007, 09:59 AM

That's a piss-off.

Toms-SC

11-06-2007, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by rage2
Unfortunately, if the 2008 vehicle is part of the INADMISSABLE list, you can't install an immobilizer and expect them to let the car in. It just WILL NOT happen.

Well what the fuck. Is this normal? There is a disconnect between Transport Canada saying you can modify them to bring them in (as seen in big letters above) and what RIV is allowing?

Graham, give RIV a call and see what they say about TPC if you got some time.

Man this government red tap shit is confusing.

tentacles

11-06-2007, 04:21 PM

There is no disconnect. TC says "in many cases", RIV tells you right on the list exactly what those "cases" are. If the car is inadmissible, it's not one of those "cases".

clem24

11-06-2007, 04:53 PM

Yeah I am not sure what the confusion is about. If the car is modifiable and thus admissable, it would state that in the last column, like Rage2 pointed out. Otherwise, if it is explicitly stated as inadmissable, ur SOL.

Crymson

11-06-2007, 05:47 PM

sorry, dumb question. What is an immobilizer? I only own old ass cars.

Ekliptix

11-06-2007, 05:57 PM

Quoted:

An immobilizer is an anti-theft device, which essentially disables some electrical parts in the vehicle with a remote, making it harder for a thief to steal. Transport Canada states that after market system are acceptable as long as they meet the new spec, but certain car manufacturers are refusing to make it an option on their new 2008 models (Honda, GM, etc.)

The Canadian government has very specific requirements on how long it will take to physically get to vehicle ECU's so that they cannot be modified or replaced to steal the vehicle. There are some weird aspects to the rules though that make them a pain for the design engineers, as well as the service centers who might have to remove parts that were intentionally designed to be difficult to remove easily and quickly.

I'm hoping to find out either what it'd take to get a CMVSS 114 system put into an American car that has FMVSS 114 (American version).

Or, if there's an aftermarket alarm system that can be installed to meet CMVSS 114.

Either way, it doesn't make any sense to me. This is an insurance issue, not a safety issue so Transport Canada really shouldn't be involved.

tentacles

11-06-2007, 06:05 PM

BC and Manitoba have public car insurance. Isn't that why Evo's are not allowed?

clem24

11-06-2007, 06:10 PM

Evo's = non compliant front bumper b/c of FMIC.

Hollywood

11-06-2007, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by tentacles
BC and Manitoba have public car insurance. Isn't that why Evo's are not allowed?

Bwwwahahaha.:clap:

89s1

11-06-2007, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by clem24
Evo's = non compliant front bumper b/c of FMIC.

yup. and they also took an incredible amout of damage over the maximum in the 15km/h bump tests.

subies have had their intercooler, or interheaters top mounted forever, and they have no problem with getting into canada.

tentacles

11-06-2007, 08:01 PM

I was responding to this:

Either way, it doesn't make any sense to me. This is an insurance issue, not a safety issue so Transport Canada really shouldn't be involved.

The FMIC is also really an insurance issue, correct? As in, the government run insurance companies only want to pay out a certain amount for a parking lot accident, and since there's an element of government subsidy in a public insurance company to keep rates low for everyone, the way to do it would be to ban cars that have expensive parking lot accidents?

Because if we all paid for our own accidents (through private insurance), why would the government care how expensive it is to replace the intercooler?

stevo 27

11-06-2007, 10:16 PM

so i don't get this inadmisable list stuff
if it's due to saftey if the safty is corrected why is it not
able to come in

say just for the gov you temperly make and evo for example
run with a tmic ???

Redlyne_mr2

11-06-2007, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by stevo 27
so i don't get this inadmisable list stuff
if it's due to saftey if the safty is corrected why is it not
able to come in

say just for the gov you temperly make and evo for example
run with a tmic ???
You would have to modify it to factory specs, make it dot approved, change the front bumper to make it withstand canadian impact requirements then crash a bunch of them to prove to transport Canada that it all works.

There is no aftermarket unit that meets transport Canada regulations. To change the immobilizer I believe you would also have to change the ecu which in turn could mean changing many other things. Although Im not an expert in alarms.. perhaps someone else could tune in.

Phuqu

11-07-2007, 12:14 AM

In regards to the immobilizer it may have to do with the ULC approval.

Isn't this similar to the US/Canada Compustars?

As a transmitting electrical device it needs to be certified to Canadian standards.

Perhaps the non-admissible 2008's on the list don't have the ULC approval.

Just a thought.

heavyD

11-07-2007, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Phuqu
In regards to the immobilizer it may have to do with the ULC approval.

Isn't this similar to the US/Canada Compustars?

As a transmitting electrical device it needs to be certified to Canadian standards.

Perhaps the non-admissible 2008's on the list don't have the ULC approval.

Just a thought.

Good point although I assume if they are UL rated for the US, that to get ULc rated wouldn't be much of of a stretch as when it comes to ULc and CSA it's more a matter of money being exchanged than actuall design modifications.

I've had to go through getting many non-CSA american built electronics locally CSA approved and all it involves is giving the inspector wiring schematics, a working prototype, a three month wait and thousands of $$$$ but that's a drop in the bucket for automobile manufacturers.

dino_martini

11-07-2007, 05:00 PM

Atleast all 2008 BMW's are importable. 2008 X5 4.8i here we come!

Toms-SC

11-15-2007, 12:33 PM

Just a bump for all to see. Don't want any members getting hosed. :thumbsup:

Trini

11-15-2007, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by clem24
Evo's = non compliant front bumper b/c of FMIC.
yet the Evo is allowed in the US and all over the world and they have no problems with the crash ratings.
Also what about the Evo's that are coming from Japan now the RHD ones they have FMIC and they are allowed in.
Really Canada has been deprived of one of the best cars due to these retarded laws.

ricoRA

11-20-2007, 09:11 AM

HERE (http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071120.wrcars20/BNStory/Business/home)

There are “dozens and dozens and dozens” of Canadians affected, said Robert Lamb of Kirkland, Que., who has a 2008 Honda Civic EXL in his garage that he bought in the United States, but can't drive in Canada. Mr. Lamb is leading a group seeking to persuade Ottawa to eliminate the regulation or find some other way to permit them to drive their vehicles in Canada.

....

They and dozens of other Canadians have cars and trucks that are stuck in legal limbo because their vehicles don't have a theft immobilization device that meets a new Transport Canada regulation and thus were banned from entering Canada. There's no similar requirement for U.S. cars.

....

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.”

There as so many automotive laws/regulations, that are there to protect Canadian's, unfortunately, Canadians have to pay a premium for these laws. That's one expensive immobilizer on those new Toyota's.
Canadian's have to pay thousands for this new immobilizer, so that Canadian insurance companies can keep their margins high.

rage2

11-20-2007, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Trini
yet the Evo is allowed in the US and all over the world and they have no problems with the crash ratings.
Blame the insurance companies and Mitsubishi for that one. We have higher front impact requirements than anywhere else in the world. Every manufacturer complies, yet Mitsubishi engineers did not design their cars around our requirements. Basically if you pass Canadian frontal impact tests, you'll pass everywhere else with flying colors.

Originally posted by Trini
Also what about the Evo's that are coming from Japan now the RHD ones they have FMIC and they are allowed in.
At 15 y/o, they don't have to pass anything really other than the standard OOP inspection.

Eleanor

11-20-2007, 11:03 AM

At least it doesn't affect older cars :thumbsup:

This whole import process now is a joke. They've just got to come up with a new way to fuck us over.

Trini

11-20-2007, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by rage2

Blame the insurance companies and Mitsubishi for that one. We have higher front impact requirements than anywhere else in the world. Every manufacturer complies, yet Mitsubishi engineers did not design their cars around our requirements. Basically if you pass Canadian frontal impact tests, you'll pass everywhere else with flying colors.

At 15 y/o, they don't have to pass anything really other than the standard OOP inspection.
*shakes head* to be deprived of the Evo..:thumbsdow

Well hopefully I'll be able to purchase an Evo VI TME when it is 15years old*fingers crossed*

benyl

11-20-2007, 11:13 AM

Haha, they will probably change the rules to 25 years before the Evo VI becomes eligible.

Trini

11-20-2007, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by benyl
Haha, they will probably change the rules to 25 years before the Evo VI becomes eligible.
lol I will hope they will not:nut:

Eleanor

11-20-2007, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by benyl
Haha, they will probably change the rules to 25 years before the Evo VI becomes eligible.

Because 25 year old japanese cars are safer then 15 year old japanse cars. :thumbsup: canadian government :nut:

blownz

11-20-2007, 11:53 AM

^ no because they assume then no one will actually waste time bringing over a 25 year old vehicle unless they are basically a collector. The 15 year rule was originally made for that reason. These cars were never expected to be daily drivers. And back in the day when they made the rule 15 year old cars were probably pretty worthless so not many ever came over. Now cars last a lot longer.

962 kid

11-20-2007, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Trini

*shakes head* to be deprived of the Evo..:thumbsdow

Well hopefully I'll be able to purchase an Evo VI TME when it is 15years old*fingers crossed*

The Evo will still be available here, we will just have different bumpers from US cars.

Trini

11-20-2007, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by 962 kid

The Evo will still be available here, we will just have different bumpers from US cars.
I meant the VII- IX
were all better looking than the X IMHO

Toms-SC

11-20-2007, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by ricoRA
HERE (http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071120.wrcars20/BNStory/Business/home)

There as so many automotive laws/regulations, that are there to protect Canadian's, unfortunately, Canadians have to pay a premium for these laws. That's one expensive immobilizer on those new Toyota's.
Canadian's have to pay thousands for this new immobilizer, so that Canadian insurance companies can keep their margins high.

This needs to hit the media to go anywhere

Eleanor

11-21-2007, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by blownz
^ no because they assume then no one will actually waste time bringing over a 25 year old vehicle unless they are basically a collector. The 15 year rule was originally made for that reason. These cars were never expected to be daily drivers. And back in the day when they made the rule 15 year old cars were probably pretty worthless so not many ever came over. Now cars last a lot longer.

Well if you've read any of the reasons given by the canadian government, 90% relate back to safety. and we all know the real reason they're doing this is to protect the domestic car industry. I'm sorry but if more people want a 15 year old nissan then a brand new dodge/ford, doesn't that tell you that dodge/ford needs to do something about it?

anyway we're getting off topic, sorry

:goflames: (can we get one that says bombers instead? :D)

blownz

11-21-2007, 11:00 AM

lol you really think more people want a 15 year old rusty import with the odometer rolled back then a brand new domestic? :nut:

Trini

11-21-2007, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by blownz
lol you really think more people want a 15 year old rusty import with the odometer rolled back then a brand new domestic? :nut:
depends

Eleanor

11-21-2007, 12:08 PM

I see more skylines/RHD mr2s being driven by young guys then focuses/calibers.

blownz

11-21-2007, 12:54 PM

Money and bang for the buck is the reason for that. They are cheap cars and for the price there really isn't anything comparable. And there are probably still way more young people driving domestics of any age than 15 year old imports. You saying more people buy them over new domestics is just 100% wrong. Just because you notice rhd cars in traffic doesn't mean that is what everyone is buying...

ricoRA

11-21-2007, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Eleanor
I see more skylines/RHD mr2s being driven by young guys then focuses/calibers.

But there are more focuses/calibers on the road than RHD imports.

Most young guys wont import a car when its easier to pickup a used civic/323/neon/sentra/cavi.... Only enthusiasts will import a RHD car.

403Gemini

11-21-2007, 05:01 PM

Is there a website with a list of vehicles we can (or cannot) import from the states?

benyl

11-21-2007, 05:19 PM

haha, are you serious?

Trate

11-21-2007, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by 403Gemini
Is there a website with a list of vehicles we can (or cannot) import from the states?

http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/VAFUS.pdf

403Gemini

11-21-2007, 06:43 PM

Haha fuck sorry guys made that post when i was just leaving work didnt have time to review the entire thread :thumbsup:

403Gemini

11-21-2007, 06:45 PM

WHAT , no pontiac GTO :( well there goes my plan

autosm

11-27-2007, 08:00 PM

http://www.calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/RTGAMArticleHTMLTemplate/B,C/20071127/toyotatues?brand=generic&hub=&tf=CFCNPlus/generic/hubs/frontpage.html&cf=CFCNPlus/generic/hubs/frontpage.cfg&slug=toyotatues&date=20071127&archive=CFCNPlus&ad_page_name=&nav=home&subnav=fullstory&site_cfcn=http://calgary.ctv.ca

Toms-SC

11-27-2007, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Aleks
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071127.wrcars27/GIStory/

Interesting article.

Read the bottom. Sounds like some 08's on the do not allow list are allowed in, but not allowed to be driven until a ruling is past down.

willyC

12-01-2007, 12:40 AM

Odd... really quit odd...

Something I am unsure about... can a guy buy a 4 year old used car, and bring into Canada without this immob. device?

Ekliptix

12-01-2007, 01:19 AM

yes

Mark_Nguyen

12-01-2007, 11:15 AM

latest news ive heard now is that before the end of the year the canadian government will now pass a law to allow vehicles with the new anti theft device in.
it was mentioned in the edmonton journal business section.
:thumbsup:

Weapon_R

12-01-2007, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Mark_Nguyen
latest news ive heard now is that before the end of the year the canadian government will now pass a law to allow vehicles with the new anti theft device in.
it was mentioned in the edmonton journal business section.
:thumbsup:

Do you have a copy of that article? That would really piss off the automakers. The Government is probably making an incredible amount of money due to this wave of imports.

Mark_Nguyen

12-01-2007, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Weapon_R

Do you have a copy of that article? That would really piss off the automakers. The Government is probably making an incredible amount of money due to this wave of imports.
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/business/story.html?id=50665486-3f2c-4b90-9983-dd04e81e4e3a
enjoy

Toms-SC

12-01-2007, 12:05 PM

"Feds to change anti-theft regulations to make it easier to get cars from U.S."

Aahahaha. +1 for the small guy!

Ekliptix

12-01-2007, 12:05 PM

Hell yes. GM is going to be pissed.

"Patrick Charette, spokesman for Transport Canada, said the modifications will mean that "if the car is either equipped or can be equipped with an anti-theft immobilizer, you'll be allowed to import your vehicle."

He said most new vehicles have such devices installed."

GTS Jeff

12-01-2007, 03:20 PM

The 08 STI went from being admissible to being inadmissible to being admissible again! :rofl:

Redlyne_mr2

12-01-2007, 05:55 PM

They are talking about changing the bumper laws as well which means mr2 spyder :)

Ekliptix

12-01-2007, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
They are talking about changing the bumper laws as well which means mr2 spyder :)
link??! I'm interested.

Weapon_R

12-01-2007, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
They are talking about changing the bumper laws as well which means mr2 spyder :)

haha that new laws must be giving you an ulcer...

mx73someday

12-01-2007, 10:16 PM

http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/releases/nat/2007/07-h227e.htm

Read the actual amendment proposal in the Gazette, pages 80-87:

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2007/20071201/pdf/g1-14148.pdf

Of course the government is going to tell the media that this is a victory for consumers, but the amendment isn't all good in my opinion, it still leaves manufacturers the ability to claim that their vehicle cannot be fitted with an immobilizer and therefore still be inadmissible to Canada.

Studies have estimated the direct dollar losses from motor vehicle theft in Canada to be $600 million per year. Furthermore, these studies have demonstrated that an average of 244 to 345 serious injuries and 11 lives could be saved each year if immobilization systems were installed on all Canadian vehicles.

To me this says that insurance companies are trying to save money by forcing Canadians to pay for immobilizers. The Gazette says an aftermarket immobilizer costs $300/vehicle.

1.4 million new cars/year * $300 = $420 million/year

The language is especially bad on the last sentence. "244 to 345 serious injuries and 11 lives could be saved if immobilization systems were installed on all Canadian vehicles." All Canadian vehicles or all new Canadian vehicles? Immobilizers would never be installed on all Canadian vehicles, only new ones. Motor vehicle theft happens to all Canadian vehicles, not just new ones with immobilizers, so assuming immobilizers cost the consumer $300/vehicle that would be $420 million a year. It will be years before vehicles equipped with immobilizers become the majority in Canada, so that $600 million the studies estimate is being directly lost by theft each year is not going to change for a long time.

So looking at the first year, if consumers spend $420 million on immobilizers, and lets say only 5% of the total vehicles on the road have immobilizers that prevented their theft, then immobilizers only prevented $30 million in direct loss out of a maximum $600 million per year. It's even more grim if you consider that immobilizers don't guarantee that a vehicle won't be stolen. This is a terrible investment in my opinion, I don't think consumers would go for it given the choice. Even to potentially save 11 lives, the chances of being in a situation where an immobilizer could save your life is ridiculous and not worth that kind of consumer expense, at least to me.