New federal regulations make it easier to build and buy classic car replicas

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by eschaider

Having lived in New England for more than a decade (before moving to, of all places, California) I can say with certainty that all the states have an insatiable appetite for increased taxes. The only exception (for a while) was New Hampshire and now even they have slid into the swampy waters. Only New York and California are more tax revenue intense.

Eventually you get the government you deserve, as the saying goes. The best fix is to vote down new taxes and reset lower or better yet sunset, older taxes. The corrective path can take a life time. The better solution is to move out to a lower tax state. When you do you can then spend your free time enjoying life instead of cleaning up some tax debacle left behind by a tax happy electorate who wanted a nanny sort of relationship with their government.

We lived in MA from 86-96 and it is my understanding that the way most of New England, e.g., MA, CT, RI, and as time goes on, others, is that each little town is a tax entity unto itself. So if one town has a good commercial base and another is mostly residential (as it was in our area in north central MA) the one town might have a 30% high property tax for the same/extremely comparable house in an adjacent town. Same for other personal property taxes like cars and boats - they might be different from town to town. We saw that shift happen in Westminster when the DEC plant closed (I worked for DEC and lived next door in Gardner.) Unlike the federal government, most of them won't operate at a deficit since they can't print/mint their own money (any more).

[eschaider]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

We lived in MA from 86-96 and it is my understanding that the way most of New England, e.g., MA, CT, RI, and as time goes on, others, is that each little town is a tax entity unto itself. ...

... Unlike the federal government, most of them won't operate at a deficit since they can't print/mint their own money (any more).

You are spot on, Tony.

With respect to HR 2675 everyone except you and Bojets have missed the mark on this particular event. HR 2675 requires these cars to use modern engines that have already been certified by their suppliers to meet current emissions standards, additionally, the cars will have to be exact visual replicas of vehicles that are at least 25 years old, and their original manufacturers must license the designs..

As you have already pointed out, that limits the herd size to basically just Superformance using some LS version power plant. The potential models available are just the Cobra Roadster, the GT-40 and the Corvette Gran Sport. The fact that only one manufacturer checks all the boxes to sell product, may not turn out to be the real limiting consideration. I don't know how the Cobra Daytona offered by Shelby would fit in. I suspect OK because it is offered by Shelby.

When you deal with Federal Regulatory Authorities the volume of paperwork required to meet the Federal documentation requirements, then the retention and protection criteria, and finally the long term storage criteria for the oldest docs will bring tears to your eyes and remove significant monies from your bank account. As if that were not enough the penalties for non-compliance are impressive, to say the least.

To say the cars would enter the marketplace at a higher price point is probably a nice way of saying they are going to be noticeably more expensive. The impact they have on the other replicas could either be positive — the rising tide raises all ships sort of phenomena or it could lower the market value of the non compliant replicas. Which way that needle moves is yet to be determined.

My bet is that if any of these HR 2675 compliant vehicles actually do see the light of day, the record keeping requirements are going to chill the manufacturers(?) to the point that these cars will have a very short time (if any) in the sun before they forever disappear off the market.

Certainly aggravating the whole phenomena is the fact that there is currently only one licensed replica manufacturer and no others. Could Shelby create a Shelby Licensing Authority — certainly. In fact it already exists to day for a whole range of other Shelby licensed goods and paraphernalia. Would it be a net, net positive or just another cost layered onto an already expensive turn key replica? Who can say with certainty. My bet is it would likely be a net negative, naming recognition not withstanding.

I believe when all the hoop-a-la over HR 2675 settles down to a dull roar, the whole event, barring any substantive changes, will quietly disappear off everyone's radar screen.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by eschaider

You are spot on, Tony.

With respect to HR 2675 everyone except you and Bojets have missed the mark on this particular event. HR 2675 requires these cars to use modern engines that have already been certified by their suppliers to meet current emissions standards, additionally, the cars will have to be exact visual replicas of vehicles that are at least 25 years old, and their original manufacturers must license the designs..

As you have already pointed out, that limits the herd size to basically just Superformance using some LS version power plant. The potential models available are just the Cobra Roadster, the GT-40 and the Corvette Gran Sport. The fact that only one manufacturer checks all the boxes to sell product, may not turn out to be the real limiting consideration. I don't know how the Cobra Daytona offered by Shelby would fit in. I suspect OK because it is offered by Shelby.

When you deal with Federal Regulatory Authorities the volume of paperwork required to meet the Federal documentation requirements, then the retention and protection criteria, and finally the long term storage criteria for the oldest docs will bring tears to your eyes and remove significant monies from your bank account. As if that were not enough the penalties for non-compliance are impressive, to say the least.

To say the cars would enter the marketplace at a higher price point is probably a nice way of saying they are going to be noticeably more expensive. The impact they have on the other replicas could either be positive — the rising tide raises all ships sort of phenomena or it could lower the market value of the non compliant replicas. Which way that needle moves is yet to be determined.

My bet is that if any of these HR 2675 compliant vehicles actually do see the light of day, the record keeping requirements are going to chill the manufacturers(?) to the point that these cars will have a very short time (if any) in the sun before they forever disappear off the market.

Certainly aggravating the whole phenomena is the fact that there is currently only one licensed replica manufacturer and no others. Could Shelby create a Shelby Licensing Authority — certainly. In fact it already exists to day for a whole range of other Shelby licensed goods and paraphernalia. Would it be a net, net positive or just another cost layered onto an already expensive turn key replica? Who can say with certainty. My bet is it would likely be a net negative, naming recognition not withstanding.

I believe when all the hoop-a-la over HR 2675 settles down to a dull roar, the whole event, barring any substantive changes, will quietly disappear off everyone's radar screen.

Shelby American is between a rock and a hard place. Since they are already a manufactuer they have a different set of rules. However, they did build the Series 1 which not by accident was limited to 249 vehicles before they crossed a threshold that required crash safety and a boatload of other stuff. But I doubt seriously SHelby has any more interest in pursing turnkey vehicles, they simply lack the infrastructure and the desire to create it. What remains of shelby is a lucrative aftermarket and licensing.

As far as the entire system enabled by this legislation I'm thinking it will survive. Everyone here is focused on Cobras but there are tons of other vehicles that could be resurrected. For example, Ford has already licensed lookalikes for the older Mustangs and Broncos (and original style bodies for those that want to restore). I could see those companies creating full turnkey vehicles.

What I can't see them doing is putting a LS3 in a Mustang recreation.

In all, id wager if you add up all those that make use of this legislation to make a business of it you'll count up maybe 500 or fewer vehicles per year total across all the clones possible.

It's not a bad idea, but I don't think the economics of it make much sense.

Come back again in a year with a status report.