What i've been warning people about $250k fine and possible 20 years for "importing" a Silvia.

In reply to kanaric:

They probably considered deporting Piers Morgan 50 times longer than getting rid of the 25yr rule......

yamaha wrote:

moparman76_69 wrote: I don't get why you'd risk having it crushed just to not wait.

Because he wanted street cred.....but he's getting prison cred instead.

It's all the same cred.

stuart in mn wrote: I don't think protecting dealerships has anything to do with it. It's whether a car meets EPA and DOT requirements.

Are you saying that the Japanese standards are lower than the US standards, because I would like to see evidence of that.

The automotive dealer lobby is one of the most potent forces in state and federal government. They get laws enacted so only dealers can sell new cars. At one point, a couple of foreign makes decided they had enough of their dealer's questionable sales tactics and profit surcharges corroding their reputations. They contemplated starting factory-owned dealer networks. However, they were stymied by laws limiting new car sales to dealerships.

Rupert wrote: In reply to kanaric: Don't you just love it! Bribery almost always works with the government.

I think its been proven time and time again that for giant companies, lobbying has the greatest ROI of anything a business can do. Just look at the big pharmaceuticals in the US. Medicare is not allowed to bargain for price breaks on medications?

NPR - Lobbying yields 22,000% ROI in 2004 bill

aussiesmg wrote:

stuart in mn wrote: I don't think protecting dealerships has anything to do with it. It's whether a car meets EPA and DOT requirements.

Are you saying that the Japanese standards are lower than the US standards, because I would like to see evidence of that.

They are, but if you have proof that the car meets US standards, then it can be brought in.

The real problem for Japan vs. US standards is that they are different. Including the type of tests. So you can't us Japanese certification to bring a car to the US anymore than you can use US cert to import a car into Japan.

My guess is the car came in through Canada and was Vin swapped. At the same time though it's Mississippi, either he went to the wrong place for inspection or blabbed to the wrong person about what he did. The part of the state I'm from the only question I'd get is why I wanted a Nissan instead of #murica.

You also have to realize he could import all the parts and modify a 240 RHD and all and be totally legal. But because he did it this way he gets a fine and loses the car.

moparman76_69 wrote: My guess is the car came in through Canada and was Vin swapped. At the same time though it's Mississippi, either he went to the wrong place for inspection or blabbed to the wrong person about what he did. The part of the state I'm from the only question I'd get is why I wanted a Nissan instead of #murica. You also have to realize he could import all the parts and modify a 240 RHD and all and be totally legal. But because he did it this way he gets a fine and loses the car.

Actually there was an R32 skyline in the Fishers area that was confiscated a few years ago due to being illegally imported and vin swapped with a 240sx vin. Not all cops are mindless appliance people...some are car guys and know these things. This particular car had been in the state as a "240" for about 3 years before getting caught. This was around 2006 or 2007 IIRC. This guy had a canadian drive it down, then leave it and he himself vin swapped it. Through fancy legal protection, he only got the car taken(and likely crushed), fined an untold amount, had a fancy electronic anklet for a year or so, and was stuck doing community service for a few years.

We should make a rule that noone is allowed to say "if there are rules you should follow them" so that i don't have to be so damn depressed about the future of my country while reading this thread.

GameboyRMH wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote:

stuart in mn wrote: I don't think protecting dealerships has anything to do with it. It's whether a car meets EPA and DOT requirements.

Meanwhile, how many 70s/80s V8-powered cars that have been ghetto-converted to RHD for delivering mail are in use?

Not sure, but maybe a less than a dozen? In the whole country? I really doubt any mail deliverer is drining a +30 year old car.

Ok, not RHD then, but there are plenty of '70s/'80s cars on the road that have more outdated safety and pollute more. Nobody's hitting them with quarter-million-dollar fines or putting them in jail for 2 decades.

actually most of those 70s and 80s pollution machines your speaking of generate less emissions over there lifetime since the 70's then the manufacturing of battery packs for modern hybrids. hot rod and SEMA did a good write up on it using a ventura equipped with an inline 6 and an auto.

In reply to dropstep:

but its SOOO much harder to export the tailpipe emissions!

but in reality I am not sure about the validity of that. I have heard it many times too and I think if you include the 'manufacturing' of the ventura then I am still a skeptic (until proven otherwise).

I remember when Hot Rod bought the Crusher Camaro. First thing they did was smog the car and it passed smog for at the time modern cars.

http://www.hotrod.com/cars/project-vehicles/1967-chevrolet-camaro-drag-car/

Keith Tanner wrote:

spitfirebill wrote:

Rupert wrote: Interesting. In the '60s I knew a guy who had relatives in Germany. He was self employed and took about a month off each year and went to Germany. While there he would buy a new 911 on the factory delivery plan. He'd drive the car in Germany then have it shipped back to the US. He'd then sell his one year old 911 at enough markup to help pay for his trip. He was so meticulous with his cars you'd think they were just off the showroom floor at one year old.

While I was in college it became the thing for professors to vacation in Europe for the summer while driving a Mercedes they had bought upon arrival from the factory. They would ship it back as a used car and obviously saved a lot of money.

Of course, European delivery is a legit thing. As long as you take delivery of a US-spec car.

Yep, pretty common for military members, but the military will only pay for your "one car" personal good shipment if it is verified as a US-spec car. A couple servicemen I knew in Italy wanted to bring back their Lancias and were not allowed to.

yamaha wrote:

pinchvalve wrote: "It has a unique aerodynamic frame, chrome detailing, and turbo-charged engine. In other words, it's very fast." Even if the Silvia had a frame (it doesn't) I highly doubt it would be very aerodynamic as it is usually not exposed to much wind, what with being under/inside the car and all. Even Ferrari uses tunnels and panels to direct airflow under the car, not a frame. And chrome detailing makes it very fast? In what way precisely? How does that work? "The Nissan 240sx is the closest thing to a Silvia in the United States." IIRC, the 240sx WAS a Silvia in the US. Not close, exactly the same. Different engine and options, but same car. "the wide headlights slope inward from the sides and combine with lower fog lights to give the driver high visibility in sub-par conditions." This is why the Silvia is so special? That is worth going to jail over? Sloped headlights? Really? Who wrote this article? My 3 year old could have done better.

A blithering idiot wrote that article, that's who. And the way I see it, its been known for 27 years that you can't do what this moron did without going by the book. Could he get one in as a special "Show/Display/Competition" vehicle? Absolutely. Could he get one in a registered drivable car? With a whole heck of a lot of hoops, money, and work, yes. Did this dipE36 M3 do any of that? No, he probably had a vin off a 1989 240sx. Do I have any mercy/pity for him? HELL NO. Do I agree with these laws? No, but you're still a dipE36 M3 for attempting to circumvent them and deserve what your "Reward" is for breaking them. You don't see me out converting every glock pistol to full auto because I think the NFA ban on new production F/A is bullE36 M3. Same thing applies here. Respect the law and try to get it changed the proper way if you don't like it. Don't bitch about getting caught for willfully breaking it. End of story.

agree 100% with everything you said. This kind of stuff isn't a secret, especially in tuner communities. Fraud is fraud.

Streetwiseguy wrote:

BoxheadTim wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: $250k fine and 20 years for grey market importing of one vehicle? That's pretty damn dumb. It's not like the guy was making a habit of it, unless there is something that was left out of the story. Naw, that never happens...

That would be my take on it, too. There has to be more to this story, like creative VINning or something.

That's the maximum possible fine. He'll get a fine of some sort, they will crush his car, and the next time he will buy one that's 25 years old.

He'll end up with more "cred" this way anyhow. Before, he was just a dbag with a RHD 240SX (which is no more exciting than a LHD 240SX). Now, he's a dbag who is a "rebel" and "got shafted by the MAN" and all that.....

Vigo wrote: We should make a rule that noone is allowed to say "if there are rules you should follow them" so that i don't have to be so damn depressed about the future of my country while reading this thread.

So you would be ok if I dumped my garbage in your yard, then? There's a rule for that, too.

Are you ok spending $2000 more on a car that falsely has 50k fewer miles on it than reality? There's a rule for that, too.

kanaric wrote:

stuart in mn wrote: I don't think protecting dealerships has anything to do with it. It's whether a car meets EPA and DOT requirements.

Merc dealerships in the 80s and gray imports are why the 25 year rule exists. It was an act passed specifically to protect dealerships for German makes. Importing a car from Germany was cheaper than buying one in the US and on top of it the cars were lighter and much more powerful in some cases. A 928 for example had about 100 more horsepower. I think the act had even Mercedes in the title of the law. I forget what it was called.

Mercedes had a policy of 10% markup every model year or somesuch. They lobbied for the Mercedes-Farkyou bill to protect the dealerships.

Then Toyota and Nissan started kicking their asses with cars that were half the price and twice the car, and they had to start cheaping out and putting not-as-well-tested gizmos in the car which is why Mercedes now have a reputation for being cars that you throw away after the lease is up instead of something you buy to keep for thirty years. So if you buy a Mercedes, get one from before the LS400 existed.

In reply to Knurled:

Or just get a LS400, it's pretty much a Japanese W126.

It'd seem to me that it would behoove manufacturers to lobby the governments in an attempt to standardize emissions and safety laws globally in order to minimize expenditures on slightly different designs for different markets.

From Jalopnik

Noble got off relatively light compared to that maximum sentence and fine, however. According to court documents, he pleaded guilty to a charge of smuggling goods into the U.S. and was sentenced on Jan. 30 to 36 months probation and a fine of a little over $18,000. His plea got the other federal charges — four counts of wire fraud — dismissed. Noble was indicted last year.

Jalopnik

In reply to carbon:

The trouble with that is simplifying the regulations would cause hundreds to lose their cushy government jobs.

"Noble made fraudulent claims and wire transfers in an attempt to sell the car to a man in South Carolina, despite federal agents telling him not to. "

Yep, this guy is sure a victim......

carbon wrote: It'd seem to me that it would behoove manufacturers to lobby the governments in an attempt to standardize emissions and safety laws globally in order to minimize expenditures on slightly different designs for different markets.

That's happeneing.

The real problem is disagreements of what is useful and what is good enough- both for the testing and the standards. Or is a standard even useful or not.

alfadriver wrote:

Vigo wrote: We should make a rule that noone is allowed to say "if there are rules you should follow them" so that i don't have to be so damn depressed about the future of my country while reading this thread.

So you would be ok if I dumped my garbage in your yard, then? There's a rule for that, too. Are you ok spending $2000 more on a car that falsely has 50k fewer miles on it than reality? There's a rule for that, too.

I agree with Vigo here. Once a rule is in place, especially a rule we didn't get to vote on, it's damn hard to get rid of it. It takes large amounts of lobbying mony and decades of protests. There used to be rules against womne voting, and rules against black people voting or marrying white people or even drinking out of the same fountains. Just saying "you should follow the rules and you won't have any problems" would not give us Rosa Parks or the like, now would it?

You're right, this is just a car that is too new for the law. Which is why it should be LESS berkeleying important to punish over than, say, littering in your neighbors yard.

But no, put your head down and follow the rules like a good little drone. And anyone breaking any rule should be punished like the bad people they are. Like the CORE students doing their sit-ins in Greensboro...

In reply to Chris_V:

Here's the thing- first what the guy did- bringing a car in that was not legal- which is fraud. And the same thing as someone selling you a car with falsified mileage and getting more money from it. So he is taking away your ability to make a fair decision since he's falsified papers. In other words, he's taking away your seat on the bus.

Or for a car that does not meet emissions rules- which is pretty much the same thing as littering on your property. Which is taking away your seat on the bus.

I get the idea that one should protest rules that are not right, as a society. But how are are these rules not right? Do you not see the harm that can come to other people- which is why these rules are there in the first place?

One needs to explain why these rules are harmful to your basic rights. It's pretty easy to explain why the rules make sure others are protecting your basic rights.

Unless you are ok being lied to, and are ok with being polluted on.