inadmissable to canada

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

boxing@sasktel.net - 25 Nov 2007 17:03 GMT

for some reason these vehicles are inadmissable to canada. does anyone
know why?
http://www.tc.gc.ca:80/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/Section12_0.htm

Reply to this Message

Mike Romain - 25 Nov 2007 18:22 GMT

> for some reason these vehicles are inadmissable to canada. does anyone
> know why?
> http://www.tc.gc.ca:80/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/Section12_0.htm

So why don't 'you' just go and read the explanation page like it says?

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

Mike

Reply to this Message

Steve W. - 25 Nov 2007 20:01 GMT

> for some reason these vehicles are inadmissable to canada. does anyone
> know why?
> http://www.tc.gc.ca:80/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/Section12_0.htm

The vehicle appears in the "INADMISSIBLE" column of the List of Vehicles
Admissible from the United States. In this case, it is probably that the
manufacturer does NOT authorize the installation of an electronic
immobilization system that meets the requirements of CMVSS 114, for
safety reasons. The vehicle therefore may NOT be imported into Canada.
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

Reply to this Message

boxing@sasktel.net - 25 Nov 2007 22:14 GMT

Ok, this would be a rough explanation. It looks like certain vehicles
such as the 2008 tundra that is manufactured for the usa market is not
compliant to CMVSS 114. CMVSS 114 is a canadian law to address $600
million worth of auto thiefs per year. Effective September 1, 2007,
every vehicle, except an emergency vehicle, shall be equipped with an
immobilization system that meets the CMVSS 114 standard. Anti-theft
immobilization devices are systems that assist in preventing the
unauthorized use of a vehicle. Such a device, when armed, prevents the
activation of a control unit, such as the engine control unit, the
fuel control unit or the ignition control unit. In order to disarm the
system, a coded key, a keypad or a remote device is required.

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

Reply to this Message

Noozer - 26 Nov 2007 00:26 GMT

> for some reason these vehicles are inadmissable to canada. does anyone
> know why?
> http://www.tc.gc.ca:80/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/Section12_0.htm

It's the auto makers way of preventing Canadians from importing new cars and
saving $10,000+.

Reply to this Message

boxing@sasktel.net - 26 Nov 2007 00:41 GMT

> It's the auto makers way of preventing Canadians from importing new cars and
> saving $10,000+.

what ever happened to the north american free trade agreement? it's
not so free.

Reply to this Message

Ray - 26 Nov 2007 06:37 GMT

>> It's the auto makers way of preventing Canadians from importing new cars and
>> saving $10,000+.
>
> what ever happened to the north american free trade agreement? it's
> not so free.

It's not that at all.
probably 99% of the rules for Canadian cars are a direct lift from the
US DOT rules.
However, they're not exactly the same.
Most cars fit both sets of rules for ease of manufacturing and sales in
North America.
However, not all do.
Those that can't be modified or were never certified by the OEM aren't
allowed in Canada until they're 15 years old.

An example - the 2004-06 Pontiac GTO. Designed and built in Australia,
modified for use in the USA. Inadmissible to Canada. According to
Transport Canada, GM never attempted to certify the car. According to
GM, the low volumes made it not worthwhile. I suspect the car would
have required expensive changes, and it wasn't worth the millions of $
for the possible sales. Didn't help me any, because I liked the car and
was unable to buy one.

Ray

Reply to this Message