Another fender tag - export only?

[slantsixdan]

my 79 300 t-top was made in Windsor for Canadian market, had to be shipped to the US to do the roof option, then sent back to Canada. As such it had a few options not available in US, and did not have catalytics. Fast forward about 20 years, the car is sold to US citizen. Now normally it would have to be retro fitted with catalytics to allow entry, but because it was already in the US once, for the roof alteration, it can come in as is.

That's not actually how vehicle import regs in the US work—not at all. Whoever dreamed up that story…dreamed it up. The Auto Pact of 1965 made it very easy for cars and parts to be built in Canada for the US market or the other way around, and for the kind of back-and-forth-across-the-border partial assembly work you describe on your '79, but it didn't create (and nor did any other law create) any "once it's been on US soil, it's free and clear no matter what" kind of thing.

In fact, a vehicle 21 or more years old (by production date) can be imported to the US regardless of its compliance or noncompliance with US emissions regs, and without any retrofit requirement. I don't have time at the moment to dig through the books and remind myself which of the late-'70s years was the last one Chrysler certified non-catalyst, Lean Burn cars as compliant with US emissions, but it was either '78 or '79. It was already common for Canadian-spec cars to have US-certified emissions systems, so that's another possibility.

But "Oh, gosh, it's already been in this country before? Fine, then!" is not a thing.

 

[rustycowll69]

That's not actually how vehicle import regs in the US work—not at all. Whoever dreamed up that story…dreamed it up. The Auto Pact of 1965 made it very easy for cars and parts to be built in Canada for the US market or the other way around, and for the kind of back-and-forth-across-the-border partial assembly work you describe on your '79, but it didn't create (and nor did any other law create) any "once it's been on US soil, it's free and clear no matter what" kind of thing.

In fact, a vehicle 21 or more years old (by production date) can be imported to the US regardless of its compliance or noncompliance with US emissions regs, and without any retrofit requirement. I don't have time at the moment to dig through the books and remind myself which of the late-'70s years was the last one Chrysler certified non-catalyst, Lean Burn cars as compliant with US emissions, but it was either '78 or '79. It was already common for Canadian-spec cars to have US-certified emissions systems, so that's another possibility.

But "Oh, gosh, it's already been in this country before? Fine, then!" is not a thing.

First of all, this thread is how old?
Second, you mention the number 21 years, and this occured in a car which was less than 10 years after it was manufactured. So I'm not sure if this agrees with your statement or not, because it sounded vague and nebulous about the 1979 year, but regardless, my made-for-Canada-market 79 came with a different floor pan which allowed passenger side electric seat, not avaliable in US as an option. The reason was because it did not have catalytic converters. Furthermore, Canada had leaded fuel available longer than the US, which infers to me that Canada was a few years behind the US in emission restrictions and catalytic requirements. That can't be too surprising, because similarly the rest of the US was a few years behind California 's emission laws.
As for the cross pollenation of cars back and forth across the border, I'm going from the firsthand account of my best friend of 30+ years, who had absolutely no reason to lie about it then when he was going thru the hoops of bringing it back across the border, and legally titling and registering it.
I offer this not as proof, because of the anecdotal nature of Hollywood films, but you may recall the difficulty the character (played by Tom Cruise in the movie Rainman) had in importing cars (albeit European) to the US and satisfying US emission laws.

 

[slantsixdan]

First of all, this thread is how old?

Sorry, it popped up on my watchlist of currently-active threads and I didn't look at the date of the post I was replying to.

Second, you mention the number 21 years, and this occured in a car which was less than 10 years after it was manufactured.

So then why did you say Fast forward about 20 years, the car is sold to US citizen.? Anyhow, alright, if it was 10 years that's not it, then. But that's only one of two easy explanations I offered.

regardless, my made-for-Canada-market 79 came with a different floor pan which allowed passenger side electric seat, not avaliable in US as an option. The reason was because it did not have catalytic converters.

That's not unreasonable. Note that not all late-'70s US-spec Chrysler cars had catalytic converters. Some did, some didn't. It is probable that power seats weren't offered in the US because it was easier and less messy than offering power seats with a bunch of asterisks (not available in high-altitude areas, available with this engine and this engine but not that engine or that one, not available in California, etc).

Furthermore, Canada had leaded fuel available longer than the US

Not relevant—both countries had leaded gasoline at every station in '79 when that car was new. And the end of leaded gasoline availability wasn't all that different between the two countries. It was banned for road-vehicle use in California in 1992, in Canada in 1993, and in the other 49 US states on 1 January 1996.

which infers to me that Canada was a few years behind the US in emission restrictions

Implies. Canada's emissions regulations were indeed a few years behind the US regs until 1988 when they were commonized, but that's just the date that US-emission new cars became universal in Canada; they were widely sold in Canada prior to 1988. It was pretty granular, too; Chrysler's Canadian-market line contained a mix of cleaner US-emissions and dirtier Canadian-emissions cars right on up through '87. The first few years of K-cars in Canada took leaded gas, but the '74 Slant-6 cars had a full complement of US emissions and safety equipment—including the OSAC and EGR valves and the seatbelt/ignition interlock system even though the cars would've met the looser Canadian regs without them.

As for the cross pollenation of cars back and forth across the border, I'm going from the firsthand account of my best friend of 30+ years, who had absolutely no reason to lie

I don't think he was lying, I think he was either misinformed or not remembering correctly.

 

[rustycowll69]

I don't think he was lying, I think he was either misinformed or not remembering correctly.[/QUOTE]
I know you have the rep as a know-it-all, but I highly doubt he was remembering it incorrectly, because he was relating it to me practically real time as it was happening. If anything, I may be mistaken, because stories naturally change the further away from the source they get.
Now it is possible he was misinformed, because when you are dealing with a bureaucracy, the rules and their interpretation often depend on with whom you are speaking.
My buddy went through it. Neither you nor I did. So I'll just stand by his story, just the same.

 

[slantsixdan]

Stand by your buddy's story, no skin offa my nose. The human memory is not a camcorder, it only feels that way.

Not sure what your "know-it-all" comment was supposed to accomplish. I know a lot about vehicle regulations because my livelihood depends on it. There's lots of other stuff I don't know much about. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯