Importing a used (nearly new) Mercedes from the USA to Canada

Page 1 of 2  
I am wondering if anyone has any experience importing a newer used Mercedes from the USA into Canada. I am looking at a 2 or 3 year old S or E-class Merc. and am wondering about the difficulty in bringing such
a car into Canada. Given the favourable currency situation, it seems to make more sense to import than to pay the local dealers their crazy prices. Any insight into duties, shipping costs and general problems would be appreciated.
Larry B.
Toronto, Ontario
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Take a look at http://www.riv.ca/english/html/how_to_import.html . Also note the VIN restrictions on certain S-class vehicles.
Josh
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I took a look at the list and the VIN restriction for all 2001 to 2003 cars imply that you need to modify the bumpers to pass Canadian safety standards. Does anyone know how extensive this modification is?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where is your threshold for "extensive" ?
1) Aquire Canadian bumpers. 2) Attach to car.
--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Extensive to me means it is not worth the time, cost and effort to buy new bumpers and have a mercedes dealership install them. This could cost many thousands of dollars. This would negate most of the advantages from importing alone. There may be just a different mounting brackets required and this would be substantially cheaper. Have you imported a newer car and completed the mods required OR do you just import the older mercs? (better cars imho)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

another thought...if you have an older benz, or any car for that matter, does it have to meet the requirements of a newer model? Of course, importing may negate any grandfather clauses. Here in the US, you don't even need a horn, if the car wasn't originally equipped with one, for example.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No. My 67 doesn't even have seat belts, let alone French instruments. It's a Euro so it does have kilometers though.
--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I stick with the old ones. Some of them are really in great shape.
And importing them couldn't be easier. Drive up, pay a little bit and you're on your way in 13 minutes. Teh faxing of the title to US customs for export control is a new pai in the ass, the line ups are huge, smelly and the customs guys there couldn't be bigger jerks.
The Canadian border folks are exacly the opposite. Lotsa fun.
--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not a benz mech, and certainly not as knowledgable as 90% of these posters here, but, uh, are you suggesting that the crash test for cars in Canada is more stringent than here in the US?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    Absolutely! that's common knowlege!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Common to you, perhaps, but I didn't think anywhere on the planet was as sue-happy as here in the US, where tort lawyers have created more problems in more fields than you can imagine. You guys must hate lawyers even more than us.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you mean like: How do you save a drowning lawyer? ......
take your foor off his head :-)
re common knowledge ... kidding.... here in Canada we do pretty much as you do in the good old US of A.
cheers, guenter
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Actually, I like Canada. My wife and I have been up to Niagra a couple of times, not so much to see the falls (remember the movie National Lampoons Vacation with Chevy Chase, when he was in a hurry and got out to view something, bobbed his head a few times, and left quickly? Kind of what I did last time there) but to eat the food and drink blues. Like to pop up again soon; gettin' hungry and thirsty again ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You call that going to Canada??? :-)
In that case I first visited Canada in 1973, when the Maid of the Mist stopped at Niagara Falls, Ont, and I stepped off the boat for a minute (so I could say I had stood on the ground in Canada).
Usually I date my firsttrip to the early nineties when I spent a few days in Montreal {(ok, we can now start an argument whether that's in Canada...;-).}
DAS
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
--
"wolfpuppy" < snipped-for-privacy@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:220db$440b05f8$d8442687$ snipped-for-privacy@FUSE.NET...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, a couple of years back my wife had a business trip that took us to Toronto. I absolutely loved China town and couldn't wait to find some vietnamese hole-in-the-wall small eatery off the main drag serving dim sum out of things I would never confess to my wife. I would walk the six blocks there every day while my wife was taking her classes....by the way, those have to be the longest damn blocks I have ever seen!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The differnce being the loser pays the winners legal fees here; we have far far fewer dumb cases go to triel because of this.
I like layers. You wanna shoot all of them? Fine, but I'm keeping mine and you can argue the merits of your own case yourself.
--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, that makes all the difference in the world, when the loser has to pay the legal fees of the winner. If that were the case here, we wouldn't have so many frivolous lawsuits, like suing over spilled coffee and such. It's because of these frequent ridiculous suits that liability costs are so high. Did you know that the average doctor has to pay around 100-200k dollars a year for malpractice insurance? And companies will generally always settle out of court over the lamest suits not because they feel they will lose but because they would be out 100k dollars defending themselves, so they take the cheapest way out, and, of course, pass the costs on to the consumer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wolfpuppy wrote:

Tsk..tsk..tsk, now. Just to interject one simple fact: believe not the MEdia! The media's portrayal of the McDonald's "hot coffee" case has been so in error as to render it unworthy of comment except to state that the myths are just that, myth. The restaurant had had many complaints, the burns were deep, the skin grafts numerous...blah, blah, blah. But that doesn't get attention for the mega-millionaire-media-mouths, whereas the deliberate mis-impression that's so prevalent did/does.
Having said that, however, there are US citizens whose constitutional rights are routinely trammeled asunder daily and not one attorney gives too hoots in hell. It must be some esoteric event to garner television cameras, etc. The legal system in the USA is so out of kelter that it is bound to go the way of GM and Ford as more people see it for what it is! Hint: it ain't about justice, unless you spell that "just-us". Frivilous lawsuits have become the norm. The more frivolity the better, because Tinsel Town is calling the shots.
Doctors, like others are a group who pay the price for what a few criminals do. So what's new? Medical malpractice is necessary to discourage murder! Sorry, but that's the way it is, and nothing gets attention like hitting the pocketbook. MD's played the stock market and lost! I'm not loosing one hour of sleep over their situation: they brought it on themselves. Medical malpractice is such a farce! Have you ever seen an MD at the food stamp office or sleeping under a bridge? Of course not, and you won't! They're whining about affording three Mercedes at a time instead of an entire fleet! Yeah, I know, the attorneys helped put them there, but the bottom line is that this is nothing but an argument between MDs and attorneys and it's a plot to take more from the non-lawyers and non-MDs. I've no sympathy or empathy for any of them! They don't do the work half the time anyway, but leave it to nurses and/or interns while they sip martinis and do another talk show or try in vain to create a new life form from bits and pieces from various of God's creatures.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, boy. I'm going to have some fun with this one.

No, it was not in error. McDonald's was sued, and they lost. I'm not sure of the exact amount, but it was a huge sum of money. The point here was that it was a frivilous lawsuit to begin with and should not have resulted in the judgement that was granted. McDonalds was equally at fault, too, not because they served hot coffee, but because it came to light that they had settled similar cases like this over 700 times out of court, which only encourages more lawsuits of this nature. The problem here is that when a company tries to fight a lawsuit of this type, if generally costs more in legal fees to defend themselves than it would to pay the settlement. McDonalds, from a corporate standpoint, was simply doing what most any company does when it looks at the bottom line--take the cheapest way out. As far as believing the media, well, that depends on what media you pay attention to. We have a very liberal biased media here in the states, unfortunately, but there are still media sources which will give both sides of a story without an agenda of their own. My favorite newspaper, for instance, would be the Wall Street Journal, where you get just the facts. >Having said that, however, there are US citizens whose constitutional rights

If, by tinsel town, you are referring to Hollywood, I will agree that they are liberal leftest as well (not all, but as an industry it would seem so). But to say they are calling the shots is off. In case you haven't noticed, the liberal left has been losing power in government for many years. Bush was elected twice, conservatives have the majority in Congress and the House of Representatives, and liberal democrats are losing polital offices everywhere in the country. Why? Because they are on the wrong side of history, and most of the American people, who are not the dummies that they would like to portray, know this. Most of us just shake our head when some of these actors say the things they say.
I'm not at all sure what rights you feel we citizens are losing here. You will have to be more specific on that. The fact that lawyers push frivilous lawsuits isn't causing me to lose any rights--I could do the same thing; I just don't chose to. It may cause the price of a certain product to go up, but I can shop the competitor, and that puts the burden back on the original company to examine its' own behavior concerning suits.
As far as the legal system in America going the way of GM and Ford? Last time I looked, being a lawyer had nothing to do with selling cars. There will always be a legal system; our country couldn't do without it. We are a nation based on the concept of laws and due process. The system may go astray sometimes, but it isn't going to go away, and, it is not a "corporation".

You couldn't be more wrong here. Doctors don't pay the price, we do. We are the ultimate consumer, and we will pay the ultimate price. Just like any business, when a doctors' expenses go up, the price for their services go up. The bad guys here aren't the doctors, but the lawyers who create huge malpractice suits, resulting in monetary awards that are ludicrous, are. Because of the constant threat of being sued, whether they ever are or not, all doctors must have malpractice insurance. Without this insurance, one suit could put them out of business. These costs are then passed on to us, the consumer.
By the way, doctors don't murder people. They might make a mistake, because they are, after all, human, but they don't deliberatley set out to injure people. And if they do make a mistake, is it fair to award someone millions of dollars? Look, we're talking about people who spend a great deal of money and many years of study to become what they are. One of the reasons they make the money they do is because they didn't start working in their field until 8 yrs or so after high school. It takes a lot of dedication to be a doctor, so I don't begrudge them their fees. I don't like the malpractice aspect of it, but, again, that is not their fault--that is brought about by tort lawyers and judges who award these assinine large awards.

As far as I know, there is no obvious collusion between lawyers and doctors. Doctors, as a rule, would rather not have anything to do with lawyers, and, as far as doctors and lawyers plotting to take more money from the rest of us? Do you know how insane that sounds? In fact, the last part of this post has me thinking that you have had several shots too many and need to lie down. I can't even comment on such blather. You are one atom from calling doctors frankenstein and using lightning bolts for medical procedures.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wolfpuppy wrote:

REALLY? Here's one case in point! You should get out more and check out the rest of the world.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/02/60minutes/main1362808.shtml
(CBS) Most Americans know that if you get sick enough to go to a hospital, it's going to be expensive. But you may be surprised to learn that hospitals all over the country charge their highest prices, by far, to those who can afford it least - the 46 million Americans who don't have health insurance.
Hospitals charge uninsured patients two, three, four or more times what an insurance company would pay for the same treatment. And, when the uninsured can't pay, they often find themselves the target of collection agencies or in bankruptcy court.
60 Minutes had no idea how much hospitals can charge people without insurance, until we met Carlos Ferlini and his daughter Peggy.
"I would consider us, you know, right at the bottom of the middle class. We're not poor," says Peggy Ferlini.
"I pay my bills. I pay all the regular guys, but I'm not a rich man," adds her father, Carlos.
Carlos Ferlini made a decent living installing and repairing gutters, but not enough to afford health insurance. Then, last February, Carlos fell off a roof while on a job in suburban Los Angeles.
He was rushed to Providence St. Joseph's Medical Center, a Catholic-run, non-profit hospital in Burbank, Calif. Carlos' wife and daughters knew it would be expensive, but they weren't thinking about costs at that time.
"We thought he was gonna die. I mean, at that moment, you're terrified. You're just - you don't even care about anything. You don't care about the money," Peggy explains.
Ferlini was seriously injured; he fractured his skull and ribs and punctured one lung. He spent 18 days in St. Joseph's, 14 of them in intensive care. He had no surgery and was sent home. Then he got the bill.
"We knew we were gonna owe a large amount, and we know we have to pay it," recalls Peggy.
Carlos remembers first seeing the $246,000 bill. "I showed my daughter, 'This is the bill?' And she say to me, 'Oh, my God."
The Ferlinis didn't know what to do until Carlos heard KB Forbes on a local Spanish-language radio station, saying that many hospitals don't give uninsured patients a fair break.
They contacted Forbes, a community activist who has been waging a nationwide crusade on behalf of the uninsured. He says what happened to the Ferlinis is all too common.
"Basically, hospitals charge uninsured people four or five times more than what they would accept as payment in full from an insurance company. Simply put, it's price-gouging," says Forbes.
Forbes and his staff analyzed Carlos Ferlini's bill from St. Joseph's, using figures that American hospitals are required to submit to the federal government each year. Those figures are a matter of public record.
The bottom line: Forbes found that, while St. Joseph's was billing Ferlini almost a quarter of a million dollars, it would accept just under $50,000 as full payment from an insurance company for the same treatment.
The hospital charged Ferlini more than $5,800 a day for intensive care, nearly 2 times more than what an insurance company would pay.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.