Canadian_jdm7

I took a drivethru in my RHD....Just did it backwards, worked like a charm

Shadao

you know manntits, if you could read you would have seen what i wrote, but obviously you cant....

while japan's lights maybe ECE compliant they do not have ECE markings, they have JIS markings and when going through an inspection they are gonna look for the markings andwhen they see JIS on the headlights(tail lights are exceptable) they will fail the car.

if you can get ECE marked lights for a JDM vehicle they will get a pass, but they have to be marked...

JDM-FD3S

Here's another article on the proposed law changes... some stuff was taken out of context; but overall it tried to cover all sides of the story...

http://www.thestar.com/article/195075

TurboMazdaSpeed

mmmm backwards.. ill give it a try haha

Alak

iTrader: (9)

I just bring a friend. Solves the drink holder problem as well.

TurboMazdaSpeed

drink holder problem solved ! i use that bad boi for my coolant holder somtimes, i get off work around 2 in the morning usually so theres no ppl that can assist me, ill just get out of my car and talk to the person, kinda defeats the purpose of a "drive though" .. well half of it i guess :P

paradoxbox

Wow how could someone ever be so wrong.

Business owners have a lot of sway. There is a huge marketplace built specifically on imported cars, if the law ever changed to 25 years it would represent hundreds of millions of dollars of lost sales, thousands of lost jobs, a huge reduction in tax and duty from imported cars and parts.

I don't see it happening. But I do see tighter regulation on who can import cars for resale, and that's something I strongly agree with. I absolutely HATE with a passion fly by night import companies (Think Bob's JDM Imports shop with a 778 cellphone areacode phone number..).

I've imported two JDM cars MYSELF and I think that they are far safer than the equivalent that can be found here in Canada for the price.

Turning left is a pain sometimes. But not that big of one. It's like turning right at intersections in a LHD car. Your chances of hitting a pedestrian are as high as turning left and being hit by a car IF you are a stupid idiot and don't pay attention while driving. Pay attention and nothing bad will happen (Usually).

Manntis

and if you could read, you wouldn't have to a) resort to childish namecalling and b) realize that many of your 'responses' stem from misreading the post you're replying to, then talking out of your ***.

And since you're such an 'expert', you may want to remember that Jeeps aren't cars, and fall under light truck bumper regs.

Shadao

funny how you post a picture about how kids who read succeed which is childish, which is why i replied the way i did, in self defence...

and as for me talking out my ***, where have you gotten your ?factual? information from??? TC website? ICBC website? or from a friend of a friend who knows this guys sister who saw someone talking about this stuff?

i had to repeat twice my response, and it wasnt attacking you at all, it was pointing out the ECE and JIS markings and how they affect the inspection process... as it doesnt matter how the light performs unless is marked with ECE or DOT it wont pass simple as that, while JIS may meet ECE standards they are not marked ECE they are marked JIS so once again i have had to explain my answer

i never mentioned jeeps not once... so once again readings owns you

Manntis

whine, whine, whine...

Where do I get my factual information from? DOT. My electrical & mechanical engineering background, specializing in vehicles. Consulting for SpitzKraft, an HID company. Regular correspondence with Daniel Stern. bulletins sent through my IEEE membership. Where do you get yours?

And J1S can pass and has passed inspection. Some inspectors are ignorant that it's ECE compliant, some know better.

You're right about the Jeep one, though. That was Alak. I apologize. That in no way excuses your plain wrong claims that bumpers haven't had shocks, there are no structural differences between JDM and NA cars, etc. etc.

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Shadao

JIS wont pass any more, not as of Feb this year... in order to get a vehicle approved it has to have pictures taken and then submited to either brian kangas or mike woods, once they have approved it will then pass the inspection process... so if they see JIS on a cars lights it wont pass, the only JIS approved lights that pass are tail lights.... sure inspectors are ignorant, thats what caused the problem in the first place... and if they find JIS on an passed vehicle then they will issue it an VI....

i never claimed that bumpers didnt have shocks.... i merely asked since when ... and id like to point out that since only some vehicles have these bumper shocks, i dont see how a vehicle that doesnt have them is any less safe. cause if they made such a big difference they would be in all, not some vehicles...

where have i gotten my info from? hmm lets see, MOT, TC, ICBC, Customs, my local CVSE officer whom im friends with, and a few other people who know as much and more than i...

getting your info from DOT isnt all that helpful because the DOT is for the USA, while the guidlines are very similar they are not the samething, just like how in Canada we have the CMVSS and the USA has the FMVSS(the CMVSS is almost a carbon copy of the FMVSS but it does have differences)...

Manntis

Let's review: I said:

In practice it'll likely be like cars from the US under 15 years old. That is, each model will have a pass/fail on whether it meets Canadian safety standards.

to which you reply:

well nope your wrong there too... currently you can import many new vehicles from the USA as long as they are on the admissable list

Telling me I'm wrong, then parroting back what I said. Nice. WTF do you think the 'admissable list' is, anyhow? A list of cars that meet Canadian safety standards.

You've claimed:

saying that an JDM rx-7 isnt as safe as a USDM rx-7 doesnt make sense, they went through the same tests, they were built in the same factory, the only things different were driver position and some trim options.

...which is plain false, as JDM cars and NA cars often have differing structural bracing to comply with different regulations. Open up an SA and see why they don't have the storage bins the FB has. Structural bracing to comply with North American regulations, while the JDM one had rear seats there. 'Same tests' you say? No research, no clue says I to you.

You claim to innocently ask 'since when'... seems your memory is short, too. What you said was:

and now bumpers have suspension? this is a newone, please show me pics of this bumper suspension

BUMPER SHOCKS. Common as hell. If you'd actually taken apart a car or two, you'd have seen 'em. Here's the one off one of my '85 GSL-SEs:



And yes, DOT is relevant. Canada incorporates DOT rulings into it's regulations - which is why I stay in touch with DOT. Thanks for the education on FMVSS v. CMVSS. I wrote papers on the relevant FMVSS.108 regs for SpitzKraft, ACA, and other Canadian based companies developing lighting products that had to meet US and Canadian regulations.

You got your info from 'a friend' and 'a few other people'. I got mine on the job. And you have the nerve to accuse others of second hand info.

Shall we continue?

Shadao

well then if you are so knowledgable and have friends in all the right places why arent you helping to keep the 15yr rule in place rather than argue with me...

i figured i would be able to find some people here who might actually want to help thats why i started this thread in the first place, and so far i have had more negativity than help...

o i know why people dont like talking about this... its because in a few years when the market gets flodded with RX-7's and other great vehicles, your now rare and pricey car isnt worth nearly as much... lets forget about the safety issues cause lets face it if safety was such a big deal motorcylces would be illegal.

Manntis

Because, as I said about it on page 1, if it's like the 15 year rule but expanded to 25 years - cars that meet our standards are allowed in, cars that don't are not - then I've no problem with it.

It's not about how 'valuable' anyone's cars are - with a very few notable exceptions, cars are the shittiest investment ever. It's about bringing in cars with JDM, not Canadian, rear collision protection (Japanese standards are far lower), Euro bumpers (lower minimum bumper heights), etc. Your straw man has no pulse. The arguments about safety standards are about just that - safety.

Shadao

japanese standards for rear impact at the time these vehicles were made was done at 50kmh, only recently in Canada did the rear impact standard get raised to 80kmh, and it got raised because of all the high speed collisions that occur in north america, we have the most dangerous roads in the world. so if these vehicles are so unsafe then i guess every single vehicle that is 10yrs or older is also unsafe.

euro bumpers have a lower height because they factor in pedestrians being hit...our bumpers are jacked up because of all the big huge vehicles on he roads. also they have a much lower casualty rates, than we do, yet the car has been around there for longer than it has here...

if these vehicles were so unsafe then the rest of the world would have already banned importing them simple as that, and the only countries that have any kind of importation rules like this are Canada with our current 15yr law(lets hope it doesnt change), the USA with there 25yr law, and Australia with there 30yr law.

Manntis

SAs also have additional rear bracing in Canada, and they're 30 years old.

Never seen a Unimog, have ya? They've been on European roads since the 60s. How 'bout a Steyr - well, a Steyr anything? 6 wheel drive, bumper as high as an SUV hood. Then there's the old Lamborghini Countash which in Europe had the bumper just above the road, and for North America had to add 'blocks' that stuck up higher.

Not simple as that. They're unsafe according to Canadian standards because our country has determined what accidents are likely to occur with our climate, our roads, and our drivers. As you said yourself, rear impacts are more common here than in Japan.

paradoxbox

Sorry but here you are partially wrong, pretty much all vehicles made in Japan in the last 15 years destined for both the JDM and USDM/CDM meet the same or extremely similar safety requirements. Most vehicles of 15years ago especially mid size and compacts did not fare very well in crash testing regardless of their country of origin.

Anyway I don't even understand why you two are arguing, frankly it's retarded.

Manntis

'pretty much all' is not enough to impose a blanket rule that would allow all JDM cars into Canada regardless of age.

We're discussing regulatory decisions that could affect options for Canadian motorists, and doing so in a car forum. If you don't understand, move along.

Shadao

so lets see, i know someone said it that when RX7's were first introduced they didnt meet the standards so they had to have some things added to them, but isnt that the same thing as buying one from japan and then adding the parts to make it compliant?

and as for the bumper shocks... sure jeep still uses them, meanwhile the rest of the vehicles out there are designed to crumple....

so please tell me again why these vehicles which were made in japan are less safe when made compliant? cause im kinda confused about your arguments...

Alak

iTrader: (9)

The cars can only be made compliant to a level in which does not exceed their design parameters in their country of origin.

Last I checked, Canada did not manufacture right hand drive motor-vehicles for civilian purchase.

My Jeep crumbles, but it still has bumper shocks.

Some new vehicles use a form of foam to save weight.

Many imported vehicles have no bumpers. Usually its just frame with a bumper looking shell.


Point being is that a RHD car can never be made fully compliant. It can meet the basic rules set from TC to allow it to drive on the road. It was safe where it came from. Doesnt mean its safe in compared to our standards.

"No Shoes, No Shirt, No service."

Does a sandal constitute as a shoe? Not really, but its acceptable to gain service.

paradoxbox

Sorry Alak but you are WRONG.

SOME vehicles imported from Japan may not meet safety spec especially if the vehicle imported was never manufactured for the USDM.

However, from about 1991 on, pretty much ALL vehicles manufactured both for the JDM and USDM market can be imported and match almost exactly the safety specifications required for the vehicle in the USDM at the time it was manufactured, with VERY minor variances (Such as lights not being installed behind reflective side markers).

Any modifications needed would be minimal. In the case of RX-7 FD's it's a matter of installing lights behind sidemarkers, and swapping any headlights and glass to USDM or Transport Canada approved spec. I'm not sure why you think Japanese vehicles are all archaic when it comes to safety standards when in all actuality most vehicles manufactured there after 1990 meet or exceed Canadian safety standards.

Frankly I'm irritated by your argument that "RHD can never be made fully compliant" which is a load of crap, if it were not fully compliant it would not be allowable to insure it under crown corporations such as ICBC. You're basically just twisting the law as you perceive it to fit whatever point you're trying to get across. Unfortunately for you, you are quite wrong in your opinion (or rather your attempt to pass your opinion off as fact) and every car inspected and insured in BC by ICBC or any other province with a crown operated insurance organization is proof enough of this.

Please stop talking nonsense.

As a bit of an afterthought I find it absolutely (unbelievably) hypocritical that you would engage in diatribes on vehicular safety - vehicles in very good condition coming from Japan no less - and then brandish in your signature your 1985 GSL project.

Pray tell, what makes a 1985 GSL any safer than a 1992 Skyline or RX-7 FD3S?

My money's on the newer car, thank you very much, regardless of which side the damned steering wheel is on.

Your stance on this issue reminds me very much of why the liberals always win in Ontario elections despite all the "facts" and "comprehensive data" that would indicate voting that way to be a poor decision.

Shadao

why do you keep comparing apples to oranges, keep new vehicles and there new regulations and there new **** out of this....

"Many imported vehicles have no bumpers. Usually its just frame with a bumper looking shell."

first show me facts that MANY imported vehicles dont have bumpers, then show me how many domestics have bumpers... im sorry but again you have failed to back up your claims...

and these vehicles dont have to meet TC standards because TC standards are federal which is the CMVSS and vehicles 15yrs or older do not have to meet CMVSS regulations, they do however have to meet provincial regulations... but becuase inspectors dont know what they are looking at(this goes for domestics as well) or care what they are looking at unsafe vehicles get passed all the time, domestics and imports alike, only now imports are actually being inspected...

im sorry agian but to say that a vehicle is safe in japan but not safe here is a bunch of BS, japan actually has a inspection that works and HAS to be performed every couple of years to ensure the vehicle is in good safe running order.... what do we have here?

also... have you ever driven in a RHD vehicle for more than a week? if you havent then you dont have the right to argue that you cant see properly while turning, or that they are harder to drive or that they are unsafe due to driver position... without real life experience you are talking out your, well you know...

when i first found out about the proposed law changes i did ALOT of reading and chating with people who are in the know, i had an unbiased opinion, and after doing all the stuff i have done, i have come to the conclusion that "safety" is being used as an excuse... if these vehicles were sooooo unsafe they never would have let them into the country in the first place, let alone get insured and driven daily...

Alak

iTrader: (9)

If RHD could be made fully compliant, I could go out right now and buy a 1995 Rx-7 from japan and bring it over. According to you, it can become full compliant to our safety standards because we had a USDM version of the same year. I should run out and buy one now.

I never said Japanese cars are archaic. I said they are NOT built to our standards, but to Japan's standards, which are NOT our standards.

And my 85 GSL has no bearing on this conversation, because in 1985, it was completely compliant to canadian safety standards. And still is. 1992 skyline and JDM Rx-7s were/are not compliant. If RHD had no bearing on safety, I could run out and buy a brand new JDM RX-8 and bring it over. Alls I'd have to do is switch the bumpers, lights and other equipment. But I can't, obviously for some reason. Maybe because the car was designed for safety in another eviornment, not of our own.

But lets not talk of my 85. How about my canadian compliant 04' Acura TSX, or my Canadian Compliant 06' Jeep Liberty.

I could go buy either cars in England - but they still would never be able to meet our standards.

My Arguement, is what makes your car being 15 years old completely exempt from all the other rules every other car has to follow? What made my skyline I owned last year exempt?

Are the rules efficent enough?

Are the inspections harsh enough?

HARDLY.

Alak

iTrader: (9)

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

The government is questioning the safety of these cars, as well as the process of identifying risks.

Moving the rule to 25 would bring in more control to the inspections. You'd have to jump through hoops, etc. to get your car on the road.

But if its 15 years old, I bring it over, do a couple mods, get an inspection and drive that ****** all over the country.


I dont want to see the rules changed, I want to see them enforced.

I back the safety arguement because I sure as hell dont want someone driving an unsafe car to kill my wife in a motor vehicle collision.

Shadao

if safety was the arguement then they would be pulling unsafe vehicles off the roads that are domestics... at an CCMTA meeting outside was a bunch of imported vehicles, the link is now dead to the pics but there was a domestic 4runner and its jdm equivelant the surf, the surf didnt have a spot of rust on it the interior was mint and looked brand new, the domestic was rusted out windshield had a crack and the interior looked like it was taken out of a garbage dump...

changing the laws to 25yrs would not bring in more control to the inspections.... that statement is backwards...

please tell me how it would improve the inspection process?

keeping the 15yr rule in place and properly inspecting the vehicles is what needs to be done.... the break down is at the inspection process.... when a person has to get an inspection performed regardless of if its an domestic or import the inspection facility should do there job, which they arent.... because domestics are passed all the time falling apart, the only vehicles they truly check now are imports thus prooving that they are safer because they are being inspected properly....

the rules are being enforced thats why you can only legally import vehicles 15yrs or older, its the inspections that need to be done properly, and chanign the eligblity age wont change that...

the only benefit to changing the rule to 25yrs is they will be able to identify vehicles that are not eligible that much easier, no more R33's and R34's or RX7's and Supras that arent 15yrs old....

it wont improve safety on our roads, because if the change happens, people who were gonna buy a quality used vehjicle from japan now are stuck with garbage domestics....

so you still back the safety arguement? youd rather people who dont have alot of money to begin with spend it on an over priced rusted out high km domestic vehicle.... think clearly please it will help us all.....

trying to say that a import is less safe than a domestic without PROOF is BS, you know it, i know it... and when comparing the jdm to the usdm use apples to apples and not oranges...