pwb (03/30/83)
I also have heard of a company that plans to sell VW Bugs that have originated in Mexico (for $7,000). My home town is on the Mexican border (next to Mexicali, Baja) and while I was getting my Rabbit fixed at the VW dealership across the line I inquired about the price of the Bugs. They apparently want $3,000 for a new bug. Of course you have to deal with Customs and the EPA when you bring it back to the U.S., but you can sidestep the EPA. What you do is drive into Mexico with three vehicles and a tow bar You need to get some fake invoices, which you can probably get from the dealership (for some extra $$), drop the engine, and strip the engine of all the air ducts, manifolds, etc. Tow the engineless Bug back with one car (claiming it as a car body, etc.), bring the engine in another car (claiming it as a short block), and bring the rest in the third car (claiming it as assorted parts). You'll have to pay the 6% tax on the amounts shown on the invoices. Once you've got it across reassemble it. This may be alot of work, but saving $4,000 for a days work seems reasonable to me. I've done something similar to get an engine across for a dune buggy. It saved me $600 deposit and nine months in a warehouse (for the engine that is). Phil
mark (03/31/83)
I have heard that the VW you get from Mexico is really only worth $3K. It is missing most of the safety equipment required under US law, and will probably kill you in an accident. I also think that USENET does not appreciate having detailed instructions on how to break the law being posted to the net.
tom (04/01/83)
MY FIRST FLAME: regarding smuggling in a Mexican VW by bringing it in piece by piece. The EPA is established for OUR benefit! Pollution controls stop pollution. Pollution hurts and kills. Its that simple. Avoiding EPA regulations by bringing in a car the way you describe infuriates us who are trying to pollute less and live longer. Many areas now require emissions inspections on a yearly basis. I hope you move to a big city and get caught with a car which isn't allowed on the streets! - Tom Beres (...!duke!mcnc!rlgvax!tom)
jm (04/01/83)
In reference to cbosgd!mark's comments about "...safety equipment
required by US law...", what the hell makes you think that the
government knows anything about anything (especially with respect
to automobiles)? Please remember that many features that are standard
(or even required) on cars in Europe aren't even legal in the US.
The most obvious being "non-sealed beam headlights", which the NTHSA
and DOT both claim are UNSAFE!!! Many people came to the conclusion
long ago that the government is not bound by reason, facts, or even
its own laws. It is therefore not to be trusted.
Will this "illegal" car kill you in an accident? Yes, but then
so will a legal car. And the government can't do anything
to change that.
I personally found the comments on how to bring an illegal VW
into the US very interesting. I may try it. I'd love to have a new Bug.
Did the person who brought the disassembled Bug into the US
have any trouble licensing it?
My Escort has paid for itself many times...
Jeff Mizener
Tektronix Inc., IG/ADG
Beaverton, OR
{pur-ee,ihnss,cbosg,aat}
uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,ssc-vax}!teklabs!tekid!jm
{harpo,zehntel,lbl-unix}
CSnet: tekid!jm@tek
ARPA: tekid!jm.tek@rand-relay smb (04/02/83)
As far as I'm concerned, you're perfectly welcome to squash yourself flat driving an unsafe car. I do object, though, when you pollute my air, or endanger my safety. (As for particular gripes -- while I'm not defending any particular rule (though how safe are non-sealed beam headlights if not kept well-adjusted), the problem is that the government *must* draw its rules very tightly -- vague rules that state the spirit of what's wanted are useless legally.) Mark's comment -- which I agree with -- is a matter of network ettiquette and propriety. Quite frankly, I don't think detailed descriptions of how to break the law belong on USENET. --Steve
mickey (04/03/83)
It's nice to see that the government has had such a profound on our safety. First they get rid of the airbag, then decide that tire manufacturers do not need to list their mileage ablility anymore, and you're all sqwaking about maybe 25 bugs that come into the US illegally? Come on now! If you remember the past, the Citroen is no longer sold in the US. Why? Because it could pass the emissions test WITHOUT an emmisions control system, but our laws deemed that a catalytic converter was required. I quite enjoyed the account of how to get the bug in, not because I'd ever want to do that, but because someone is really on the ball (besides the fact that not getting caught at it makes it almost impossible). Good luck to you! I hope I can drive your Mexibug and when I get my Mercedes J-Car you can drive mine! (Such a dream!) ~? ~~? Mickey Levine decvax!cca!mickey PS. Negative flames will be accepted at /dev/null only. Thank you.
pwb (04/03/83)
It is not a matter of breaking the law, but of taking advantage of a loophole. If it was against the law, you'd never make it past Customs. Those fellows perform their jobs well. But this is a philosophical issue parallel to taking advantage of loopholes in the tax laws (i.e. inapproriate for net.auto). Your comments on other details of Fed'ing the Bug are well taken though.
emma (04/04/83)
One question regarding the illegal bug importation--how do you license it when you get it here? -Joe P.
mark (04/06/83)
#R:trw-unix:-4700:zinfandel:3200024:000:669
zinfandel!mark Apr 3 19:33:00 1983
"If you remember the past, the Citroen is no longer sold in the US. Why?
Because it could pass the emissions test WITHOUT an emmisions control
system, but our laws deemed that a catalytic converter was required."
Mickey Levine
decvax!cca!mickey
Catalytic convertes required? they certainly weren't in 1977, when I got
my Honda CVCC without one. Honda went to cc's in 1981 (at least here in CA)
but I thought that it was because of the tighter emissions standards,
not because the law specifically required one. Anybody know for sure?
Mark Wittenberg
...!decvax!sytek!zehntel!mark
...!ucbvax!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!mark
...!teklabs!zehntel!markrs55611 (04/12/83)
Yes, if a car can meet emissions levels without a catalytic converter, it's perfectly OK with the govt. The Honda swirl-combustion engine is a good example. Honda finally changed over to cat. conv. because they finally reached a point where the compromises in the head design to meet emissions standards were worse than the effects of the converter. A more likely reason for the Citroen not being available is that the low sales volume in this country did not justify the engine certification procedure, which entails considerable expense. (Even GM sometimes delays or avoids engine modifications to cut down on certification expenses.) Just a guess, however, since I'm not familiar with the particular case. Bob Schleicher