In Alberta and driving a JDM ? Read! (2 Viewers)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

I found reference to it in a CADA press release. Just went back to their site and I can't find that press release anymore.

BTW, CADA is also for the HST. Canadian Automobile Dealers Association

Of course, there is no mention that the HST makes it less of a benefit to buy privately than through a dealership. The crap we allow these groups to spin. I am sure they could come up with a reason why the Gulf of Mexico disaster is a good thing for the environment.
 
BTW what is involved in converting RHD to LHD?

Remove RHD dash sheet metal and dash its self. Replace the steering rack. move the steering colum. What about wiring to the steering column..will it be to short? Move pedals, clutch master and make holes for pedals and steering column.

I talked to some one who did a conversion said it was to much work and cost 6 grand. that was about eight years ago.

Lastly, has anyone ever gotten in a accident in a JDM cruiser before where the RHD factor contributed to the accident?
 
Last conversion I heard about cost $10,000 but was what they call a "seemless conversion". You couldn't tell it had ever been a RHD. Personally, I think this is just throwing away money for no reason but to satisfy the ignorance of a few. You can be damn sure that if it became cost effective to do the conversion and that many peple were doing them, that CADA and CO would find some other reason to not allow them... :idea: umm oh right they already did, they don't have the little Canadian safety tags so they most be a death trap on wheels. Oh and they measure pollution but the actual amount instead of PPM so they must be very bad for the environment. Of course, both are complete BS, but Joe public doesn't know how to use his own brain so why not run with it. :mad: Heck, they used the same reasons for "fleet renewal" (aka get all vehicles 10 years and older off the road). Somehow "fleet renewal" sounds less threatening, eh? :meh:
 
Is this Canadian Automobile Dealers Association the announcement that folks are worried about? If so, only idiots would trade a fully functioning 'Cruiser for a $300 bus pass. Even at the $3000 level it wouldn't interest me at all. I didn't see anywhere that it would be a mandated "Thou shalt trade out your 10 year old or older vehicle or be sent to jail!" sort of scenario.

If CADA is so concerned about our diesel 'Cruisers and the RHD vehicles maybe they need to try bringing in those same vehicles for sale here as LHD!
 
Is this Canadian Automobile Dealers Association the announcement that folks are worried about? If so, only idiots would trade a fully functioning 'Cruiser for a $300 bus pass. Even at the $3000 level it wouldn't interest me at all. I didn't see anywhere that it would be a mandated "Thou shalt trade out your 10 year old or older vehicle or be sent to jail!" sort of scenario.

If CADA is so concerned about our diesel 'Cruisers and the RHD vehicles maybe they need to try bringing in those same vehicles for sale here as LHD!

They are too efficient they would never make it in. Same with why there are no diesel smart cars anymore. 90 mpg is too much, so just say they don't meet emissions which makes no sense what so ever because the emissions you would pump out would hardly matter. Instead we need gas powered trucks that get worse mileage than some older engines. Example my Tacoma is lucky to see 20 mpg on premium with a V6. Lots of people would buy vehicles that get great mileage but then oil companies wouldn't make as much money.
 
That's just the little program they want extended. However, the plan the Wayne was privy to when IVOAC paid for our membership in the CCMTA Welcome to CCMTA's Web Site! was very specific into ensuring that older vehicles were taken out of service. I am sure that hot rods and vehicles able to hold classic car designation would be exempt. Usually that would not allow you to have an old 4x4s considered as a classic unless it was completely stock.
 
cash for clunkers
the fictional "new cars are safer than 10 year old ones" to use fear mongering on new families
the refusal of letting the small shop privy to repair information needed to repair the newer cars and trucks
the "scrapping" of older cars instead of fixing and keeping them on the road
the hoax that newer cars are more emission effiecent than the older cars although the new cars can pass 75 PPM emissions test and 10 year old cars HAVE to pass a 50 PPM emission test to be reregistered.
the hoax that newer cars are more fuel efficient than the 10 year old cars with ratings up to 75 mpg city being advertised but returning less than 50 mpg in real life driving situations.
the new water based paint jobs lasts 2 years and the old lead paint jobs were good for 20-40 years.
planned redundancy for newer cars sooner than the old system.

shall i go on? it is all one big hoax on the public backed by our greedy government sponsored organizations.
 
I just read back through part of what has been posted here. Here in the states the liberal bleedinghearts have been pushing for more "control" for a number of years. Since the recent administration has come into power this "control mania" has exponentially increased. The socialist agenda is really being pushed. For all you real Americans who are reading this it is past time to swing into action, join the conservative groups, and fight the liberal agenda or we will be facing the same kind of garbage. For all you Canadians, PLEASE do everything you can to wake up your American friends and acquiantances.

Don
 
i have an american buddy that helps me in the shop every second weekend
and
he says, move to the states.

i say, 'shoot, shovel and shut up', the greedy governments that exist. but then. that wouldn't sit good with the peace mongers of the world.
 
What is this all about?

Are these idiots about to tell me that my '82 CDM BJ60 is not fit to drive on the road? FAT CHANCE of that happening. It's as or more fuel efficient than any new SUV out there and I'm NOT giving it up without a hell of a fight.

Is there a link for this? I need to know.

This morning a IVOAC member posted a reply he got from the government in Quebec. Apart from the usual BS they quote, this is the first time they specifically say speak to replacing older Canadian vehicles and give an specific age - 12 years.

A response from the Quebec Ministry of Transportation - IVOAC.ca Forums
 
This morning a IVOAC member posted a reply he got from the government in Quebec. Apart from the usual BS they quote, this is the first time they specifically say speak to replacing older Canadian vehicles and give an specific age - 12 years.

A response from the Quebec Ministry of Transportation - IVOAC.ca Forums

It's not morning on the right side of the country :p

Yeah, reading that email today was a bit shocking. I like my 1996, and it's in way better shape than most of the 2000 model domestic junk on the road. I may have to move across the river (to Ontario) ;)

Honestly, as I mentioned in that post, this wouldn't even be a problem if the government had the balls to prevent some of the mindless idiots in this country from getting a driver's license in the first place. I'm no professional, but every day I drive I see at least one serious example of poor driving/vehicle maintenance and it makes me mad. If there weren't so many idiots on the road, there would be a lot fewer accidents. But since driving is essentially a right in North America, here we are. :bang:
 
It's not morning on the right side of the country :p

No, I figure you are on the left side of the country. ;p

I am really glad it was Marc who responded to you. He is high up the chain. The BS that he was speaking will make it hard for them to pawn off responsibility for mis-information on a lesser pencil pusher. I am sure this will prove valuable for Dom in the legal battle. :beer:

We know the safety argument is BS. If it wasn't, they would have banned motorbikes a long time ago. It's all about the money.
 
No, I figure you are on the left side of the country. ;p

I am really glad it was Marc who responded to you. He is high up the chain. The BS that he was speaking will make it hard for them to pawn off responsibility for mis-information on a lesser pencil pusher. I am sure this will prove valuable for Dom in the legal battle. :beer:

We know the safety argument is BS. If it wasn't, they would have banned motorbikes a long time ago. It's all about the money.

It appears that way now, doesn't it :rolleyes:

I'll happily take your word for that, as I don't know anyone in the system here. My first thought was that this could be useful for Dom. I'll forward it as soon as I find the right email address.

I completely agree! RHDs are such a minority group that it really doesn't make sense to target them for much. More money from CADA though, well that's a good reason for the provinces to do their bidding (and not that of the taxpayers :frown:). No wonder nobody likes politicians :doh:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom