Delica Canada | Mitsubishi Van Club

Saw this L300 at the Ikea parking lot in Richmond last Sat Jan.9th

The headlights that are on this Delica are NOT legal in BC.

They are the original Japanese Right Hand Drive headlights that are illegal here in BC.

Luckily, the owner was there when I was looking at it.

I told the owner to bring this up with the previous owner and have them pay back the cost to get the proper legal headlights installed.

This is the 3rd L300 I've seen with original RHD headlights in the past few months.

Fortunately I spoke with the other two owners as well to make them aware and coincidentally, they bought them from the same place a few years ago.

The owners told me they don't expect a dealer-sold vehicle that's a few years old to still be under warranty. I told them this is not a warranty issue, that it should have been legal to begin with, let alone being driven on the road as a BC inspected vehicle.

Whether or not they went back to that same dealer, I don't know.

But anyone buying a used L300, be aware that it appears there are illegal one's still floating around.

Nice decals on the white one

Still see this from time to time... education is the key. It would appear, as you state, that some dealers are big offenders.

~John

subtle way of not mentioning the dealer... well played.... well played.

That's my middle name. 'subtle'

In all seriousness though, the owner's a cool guy and he had no idea he was driving around with RHD lights.

It's his van and it's being driven in the lower mainland for anyone to see.

He told me to post it here on delica.ca

i am 100% behind accountability. Facts are facts... and the information can really only be taken one way.... unless I guess the owner is just a huge fan of the guy he buys oil filters from...

But I guess when you're in the van selling business you could save a lot of $400's.... right?

maybe someone should tell more than just the shop?

At least he did not forget to put a few stickers and the reflectors on it
I read somewhere on his website "We are your most trusted source of Japanese Used Cars (JDM) importer and dealer in Canada"
Well done Jesse!

Did you check the tires too? Back a few years ago Dealer RHD were far to common left running old original rubber.

Slick and wily blurring!

I've heard alot of the old tire switcharoo.
Change the rims for the inspection then put the originals
back on. Even had it suggested here in Sk by a dealer.

Silliness.

FS

I wasn't going to do this 'publicly' but I think this is happening more than we think. I was recently at a dealer who will remain unnamed (I wish to give them the benefit of the doubt for now) who asked me if I was picky about having E-coded headlights on whatever van I decide to buy because the E-coded ones were more expensive to supply (this was for an L400). While I agree that cost does factor in to the overhead of importing and selling these vehicles with a tight margin of profit (supposedly), the correct headlights are still necessary for the vehicle to pass inspection and be insured on our roads.

Not only this, when asked about tires, the response was "why waste good rubber?". Again, while I agree with this statement to a certain degree, the correct tires are required for inspection (and thereafter).

My message to these guys (they likely know who they are and they do follow this website) would be to not cut corners when selling vehicles. Even though you are making the buyer aware that the headlights and tires are not fully compliant at the time of sale, you can still end up being liable if an issue were to arise. You will build a better clientele by providing more honest sales strategies in the long run - those who are honest (to be fair, I won't mention their names either - we know who they are) have proven this to be true and they enjoy a successful and loyal client base as a result.

The biggest problem with this is a dealer also being an inspection facility - this to me is a conflict of interest. I feel an importer should be required to have their vehicles inspected by an independent inspection facility and perhaps the vehicle should also be re-inspected at the time of purchase to ensure these problems don't continue to exist.

A dealer asking these types of questions opens the door for us to feel comfortable with them cutting corners on the vehicles that are supposed to keep us and our families safe. I cannot make that sacrifice to save someone else a few bucks - doesn't cost me anything as the vehicles advertised price should be for a fully (and legally) compliant vehicle.

Now as for the reason of no names, these guys come across as very nice and personable. I enjoyed speaking with them and hadn't met them prior to this one time. My hope is they will read this and adjust their business accordingly and become successful at it. If it goes ignored, then time will take it's toll.

One more thing, all this transpired without the dealer knowing what it is I do for a living. Not saying I do one thing or another but it didn't seem to matter at the time the question was asked. I am not into making enemies... I believe we are all good people... prove me right.

Help me out here. If a dealer sells a vehicle as being fully compliant, and the vehicle passes inspection, who then is liable if it turns out that the vehicle was not compliant and is in an accident?
Bad scenario - van blows a non-DOT approved tire and someone is killed.
Who is liable? owner because they should know all the rules? inspection facility because they missed it? dealer who advertised vehicle as compliant when it was not?
Given the way insurance companies and lawyers work, I suspect that they would go after all three and would not stop until they hit someone with the money?
I guess my question is this......what is the owner's responsibility for knowing all the compliance regs as compared to those entities whose job it is to know them?
Rod

drrod wrote:Help me out here. If a dealer sells a vehicle as being fully compliant, and the vehicle passes inspection, who then is liable if it turns out that the vehicle was not compliant and is in an accident?
Bad scenario - van blows a non-DOT approved tire and someone is killed.
Who is liable? owner because they should know all the rules? inspection facility because they missed it? dealer who advertised vehicle as compliant when it was not?
Given the way insurance companies and lawyers work, I suspect that they would go after all three and would not stop until they hit someone with the money?
I guess my question is this......what is the owner's responsibility for knowing all the compliance regs as compared to those entities whose job it is to know them?
Rod

it kind of depends on what happened, if the inspection guys just missed the problem they would be in trouble if the dealer swapped parts on for inspection and then back off the inspection guy would be in the clear. if the dealer knew (as they all should) that the wrong parts are on a van, whether it pass inspection or not, they would be responsible, the owner probably wouldn't be held responsible in too many situations unless it could be should that he/she knew what was going on.

My personal opinion is that there is nothing wrong with selling a non-compliant vehicle, provided that this information is fully disclosed to the purchaser.

I would have been quite willing to save a few bucks on the van and do the compliance myself (I know how to add DRL, side markers, reflectors, swap headlights, and possibly tires) There is no reason a dealer should be hesitant to sell a vehicle in that condition.

That said, if a vehicle is sold as being fully compliant, and it turns out that it isn't, that dealer should be raked over the coals.

As for who is actually "liable" if something goes wrong. Unfortunately the owner will ultimately be held responsible. The insurance company will likely deny them insurance based on this. It is then up to the owner to go after the dealer to re-coup losses, though they may have a tough time proving that it was the dealer who sold them a non-compliant vehicle, and not themselves who made it non-compliant later. In all cases the inspection facility is not liable for the non-compliant vehicle, however they could be at risk of loosing their inspection license if people higher up the food chain find out they are passing non-compliant vehicles.

Loki and Green 1 make very good points. I suppose that the best thing to do is get EVERYTHING in writing (eg. dealer "certifies" that the vehicle is compliant). That, combined with educating ourselves, is probably the best thing. Sad commentary that person's word/handshake is no longer a valid contract.
I am just glad our van came via Mardy. Takes a lot of worry out of the whole thing.
Rod

I saw that white van on the lot back in October. I test drove a different L300 and a couple of L400s there. If the L300 was sold without the compliant headlights I'd be surprised if the L400s had them. I'm glad I ended up buying Jesse's van instead.

What this kind of thing serves to do is provide ammo to ICBC and the auto industry protection lobby. This gives them molehills to blow out of proportion where ALL RHD's are concerned.

To the dealers and importers engaged in these practices, well done. Natural selection will take care of you.