Not mine, but supposed 2016 Land Cruiser Double Cab Pickup for sale...
- Thread starter PIPA
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
"Dang, people are asking for documentation again! Should we show them some and get the LC community behind our efforts? Nah, we'll just call people names."
This person/company has this Land Cruiser in the USA legally for the purposes of testing, in order to bring additional vehicles in legally per DOT/NHTSA/EPA requirements. That does not mean it has passed the tests that are necessary for it to be fully legal for sale and normal on-road use.
It is peculiar that the company behind the entire process does not just state that explicitly. So, let me try to clarify, and please chime in if I have something wrong.
Summary:
This Land Cruiser is:
In the USA
Registered with plates for temporary on-road use
In the testing phases
and legal for current testing uses
This Land Cruiser is not:
yet proven to be compliant with DOT/NHTSA/EPA requirements
not legal for resale
not federalized
not approved by DOT/NHTSA/EPA
So, yes, legal for its current use, but not legal for what everyone else wants.
It is peculiar that the company behind the entire process does not just state that explicitly. So, let me try to clarify, and please chime in if I have something wrong.
Summary:
This Land Cruiser is:
In the USA
Registered with plates for temporary on-road use
In the testing phases
and legal for current testing uses
This Land Cruiser is not:
yet proven to be compliant with DOT/NHTSA/EPA requirements
not legal for resale
not federalized
not approved by DOT/NHTSA/EPA
So, yes, legal for its current use, but not legal for what everyone else wants.
More peculiar still, he won't say what you just said, rather he tries to obfuscate. Yet he likes your post.
I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but if Mr. Papp were to be transparent at this stage, folks would be more comfortable doing business with him were he to pull this off. So bizarre...
As mentioned over and over, there are numerous ways to have a vehicle here legally or illegally where they have nothing to do with testing or working towards legalization. A few pieces of paper would solve the debate, but...
A Colorado temp tag can be obtained with a bill of sale, vin inspection and proof of insurance in most CO counties I'm aware of. It is in no way "proof" of the claim it is legally here for testing purposes.
A Colorado temp tag can be obtained with a bill of sale, vin inspection and proof of insurance in most CO counties I'm aware of. It is in no way "proof" of the claim it is legally here for testing purposes.
Yes, then again, if I were embarking upon a business venture as uncertain, controversial and financially high-risk, I would not have opened myself up to unabated scrutiny and criticism by posting on this forum with an unfinished product. While Mr Papp sounds like a measured fellow, it is clear that tact and outward-facing strategy are not as polished as other companies that have successfully imported rare, federalized 4x4. Look at Europa G Wagen and how they carried themselves for a good example of maintaining professional integrity and product legitimacy.
I say, to Mr Papp and LC America, go do it, finish your tests, and come back to the forum with all of your letters of conformity, pricing and other details.
I personally am not amazed that one truck is here. The only thing that matters is that the truck conforms 100% with federal regulations from DOT/NHTSA/EPA. And they're not there yet.
Edit: here is Europa's history and how they managed to become an importer of G Wagens in North America. No small feat. Times have changed and I am sure federalizing a EURO 5 compliant engine under EPA regs is doable (see my earlier post), this process will not easy or quick. Europa G.Wagen - History
Last edited:
Yes, precisely. Though one can assume that testing is (or legally could be) taking place given the numbers Mr Papp provided earlier, right?
One might assume that they'd put this debate to rest with a few simple pieces of paper, yet here we are. So I don't think it's a safe assumption to say that.
Well, if they ain't got no simple pieces of paper, then they ain't got no simple pieces of paper.
A great hypothesis as to why they haven't produced any.
I've been in contact with Mr. Papp in the last few days. Expect radio silence from him here on Mud for the foreseeable future. Take this as you will. I'm not posting this with any intentions other than to report what I've been told. Truck remains in PA and will hopefully move to Colorado Springs by the end of September at which time @beno and I plan to drive down to inspect both truck and paperwork. One of us will report back to the community here once we've visited.
Skeptics and optimists...have at it
Skeptics and optimists...have at it
I'm mostly curious to see if he shows you guys some documentation that suggests he has a legitimate path to federalization.
As stated prior by him....he's "wasted more than enough time" on this group...
This group of potential customers which are highly knowledgeable in both Land Cruisers and US vehicle importation rules and regulations... some of whom are (and have been since the first mention of a new 79 series) ready to buy as soon as federal compliance can be proven...
You know, folks that are possibly smarter than the village idiot and are not looking to get scammed.
Sorry, but it still smells fishy in here to me... And this thread continues to follow along *exactly* the way these types of scams *always* go.
Skeptics
Any counterpoints, optimists?
TECH:
The US EPA regs must be so stringent that the Euro-IV compliant 1VD-FTV wouldn't pass testing if someone had the coin to undertake it, yes?
Too lazy to read and too stupid to interpret this:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/587331/IPOL_STU(2016)587331_EN.pdf
From the Executive Summary of the above document:
"Our analysis of the respective emissions standards identifies that (broadly) US federal standards are more ambitious for key local air quality pollutants, particularly NOx, than EU standards. A key difference is that the US applies a single set of standards to petrol and diesel vehicles, while the EU allows higher levels of air quality pollutants to diesel vehicles. In addition, California, and a number of other states which chose to adopt California’s rules, apply emissions standards which are more ambitious than federal standards.
With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, while the US has a history of implementing fuel economy standards, this was driven by concerns about energy security rather than climate change; only lately has the US taken action directly on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The EU, in contrast, developed an earlier focus on CO2 emissions from vehicles; and EU fleet average targets for CO2 emissions are currently more ambitious than those adopted for emissions in the US."
Although I'd take the whole package if it were possible, the engine is what I want the most.
Skeptics
Any counterpoints, optimists?
TECH:
The US EPA regs must be so stringent that the Euro-IV compliant 1VD-FTV wouldn't pass testing if someone had the coin to undertake it, yes?
Too lazy to read and too stupid to interpret this:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/587331/IPOL_STU(2016)587331_EN.pdf
From the Executive Summary of the above document:
"Our analysis of the respective emissions standards identifies that (broadly) US federal standards are more ambitious for key local air quality pollutants, particularly NOx, than EU standards. A key difference is that the US applies a single set of standards to petrol and diesel vehicles, while the EU allows higher levels of air quality pollutants to diesel vehicles. In addition, California, and a number of other states which chose to adopt California’s rules, apply emissions standards which are more ambitious than federal standards.
With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, while the US has a history of implementing fuel economy standards, this was driven by concerns about energy security rather than climate change; only lately has the US taken action directly on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The EU, in contrast, developed an earlier focus on CO2 emissions from vehicles; and EU fleet average targets for CO2 emissions are currently more ambitious than those adopted for emissions in the US."
Although I'd take the whole package if it were possible, the engine is what I want the most.
I covered this a few pages back. EU and US standards are apples and oranges, however, it could be possible, given what we do know about the engine's stated emissions and what EPA requires. This, however, does not consider other issues such as crash testing and other safety compliance measures.