Delica Canada | Mitsubishi Van Club

I dont know what made my eyes popped out of their sockets more.... maybe it was his comment about maintainance.... or the comment about selling a vehicle with non DOT/E-rated tires.... no actually, the most outrageous part was his claim to $200 Space Gear Headlights, $400 tires and a $10 module.

Even the biggest haters on this forum will have a hard time disagreeing with me on these points.

That guys $$ numbers and comments did seem really far fetched. I dont think he truely meant them because it seemed like he wanted to "spur" (AKA provoke) an argument????

When I started this discussion I was looking for some information not a flamewar, looks like I got both!

dah_hunter wrote:carry on with the argument boys..

Mr. Flibble wrote:When I started this discussion I was looking for some information not a flamewar, looks like I got both!

I will speak for myself as I know there were others in this discussion that chimed in earlier.

Sorry if you thought it was a personal attack. Didn't mean for it to come off that way.

I was just calling attention to his ridiculous claims. Nobody has disagreed with me yet. $200 L400 lights... Selling a Vehicle with non DOT/E-rated tires.... come on!

Selling a Vehicle with non DOT/E-rated tires.... come on!

As long as the tires are in good condition and have the load rating stamped on the side, the DOT stamp is not required. This is per the head of inspections for the province of BC.

Green1 wrote:

Selling a Vehicle with non DOT/E-rated tires.... come on!

As long as the tires are in good condition and have the load rating stamped on the side, the DOT stamp is not required. This is per the head of inspections for the province of BC.

Do you have a link or scan of the inspection booklet page on tires as proof?

Regardless, I feel its unethical and unsafe. I would never trust a tire that doesn't have the appropriate rating. The standards are there for a reason (It is a minimum requirement of how the tire should be manufactured). I can speak first hand of a double failure of 2X generic jap tires (tread seperation). Very scarey! Wish I had pics but if you are at Surrey Scott Rd CT you can ask the tires guys. I'm sure they won't forget.

Do you have a link or scan of the inspection booklet page on tires as proof?

it was in a memo sent out to all inspection facilities. I don't have it handy, but if you have questions about it, you can contact BC's inspection people. This came down from the head of BC inspections a year or so ago.

Regardless, I feel its unethical and unsafe. I would never trust a tire that doesn't have the appropriate rating. The standards are there for a reason (It is a minimum requirement of how the tire should be manufactured).

So you feel that the DOT stamp itself is what makes the tires safe? We're talking about tires that conform to Japanese standards (or do you believe that only North America has safety standards for tires?) and that have the rating stamped on the sidewall of the tire. They are no less safe (and if I were to guess, likely MORE safe than DOT (DOT is not the gold standard for safety that the government seems to think, much of the world is lightyears ahead in safety)

I can speak first hand of a double failure of 2X generic jap tires (tread seperation). Very scarey! Wish I had pics but if you are at Surrey Scott Rd CT you can ask the tires guys. I'm sure they won't forget.

And how many DOT tires fail all the time too? I personally have had tread seperation on 3 different DOT approved tires. Having three magic letters stamped on the sidewall won't change the safety of a tire, the letters aren't big enough to hold the tire together!

Konnichiwa wrote:Selling a Vehicle with non DOT/E-rated tires.... come on!
Do you have a link or scan of the inspection booklet page on tires as proof?

I have the official document stating that load rating is an acceptable rating in place of the DOT stamp.

This again, is very old (years) information that is easily obtainable with a simple google or search here.

Green1 wrote:Having three magic letters stamped on the sidewall won't change the safety of a tire, the letters aren't big enough to hold the tire together!

I hope you don't actually believe what you posted and it was just a weak attempt to provoke me.

Get your quotes straight, I was comparing DOT AND E-Rated tires.... with non marked tires that have load rating only and limited information.

Those "3 or 4 letters" have tremendous value. It is not just something manufactures are arbitrarily allowed to STAMP ON their tires.

It means the tire is designed to spec, meets certain requirements and passes numerous gov't regulated tests. Also, next to "DOT" on the tire is the plant code and a date code. Other numbers are manufacturer unique codes such as lot and batch. These codes are internal and manufacturers use these codes if there is a problem or recall (required by law to issue recall).

There is a reason it is illegal to import NON conforming loose tires into Canada.


[edit]Started a new post with info about DOT tires: http://www.delica.ca/forum/dot-tire-testing-6848.html

jfarsang wrote:

Konnichiwa wrote:Selling a Vehicle with non DOT/E-rated tires.... come on!
Do you have a link or scan of the inspection booklet page on tires as proof?/quote]

I have the official document stating that load rating is an acceptable rating in place of the DOT stamp.

This again, is very old (years) information that is easily obtainable with a simple google or search here.

For the time it took you to type this out.... you could have just posted the link I requested. Can either of you post please. Thank you.

Those "3 or 4 letters" have tremendous value. It is not just something manufactures are arbitrarily allowed to STAMP ON their tires.

once again you are failing to understand that Japan also has safety standards for tires.

Standards I would trust just as much, if not more so, than the famous "DOT"

Green1 wrote:

Those "3 or 4 letters" have tremendous value. It is not just something manufactures are arbitrarily allowed to STAMP ON their tires.

once again you are failing to understand that Japan also has safety standards for tires.

Standards I would trust just as much, if not more so, than the famous "DOT"

They have a JAPANESE SPEC but no requirement on what can be imported in their country. Why do you think some vehicles imported into Canada from Japan have "No-name"/no label tires?

Both of you guys are so quick to post opinion... but still havent taken the time to show me this link from ICBC that backs up your claim???

Sorry guys but I will no longer respond to your comments. Seems like you are just out to provoke me rather than further an intelligent fact based, non-opinionated discussion.

Everyone would have to agree that a tire thats 15 years old, is not a safe tire..
If its DOT, JS, or just has load ratings.. Or nothing.

However if you have new tires put on it japan.. well that in my opinion is a safe tire..

anyways..

you can trash me all you want.. all my prices are correct and 100% actuate for ME.

If that somehow ruins my credibility, I guess my years of of importing and building contacts has done nothing but make me dishonest..

thanks green1 and jfarsang for backing me on some things..
I have nothing more to say in this thread.

(Buy local if you find a good deal, buy from japan if you have the time/patience)

Sorry guys but I will no longer respond to your comments. Seems like you are just out to provoke me rather than further an intelligent fact based, non-opinionated discussion.

While I would welcome your silence, I highly doubt it will happen any time soon.
As for provoking... none of us are digging up long settled threads with lots of information and trying to make a big deal about how wrong they are. None of us are calling large portions of the most experienced members, and the companies with the best reputations, liars.

And, unlike you, we're posting facts. Just because you don't LIKE our facts, doesn't make them any less valid.

If you believe that any of the facts that we have linked to are incorrect, you are free to post facts of your own backing up your ridiculous opinions.
But so far you have demanded extensive documentation from us on every little detail, while refusing to back up any of your assertions with even heresy, let alone fact.