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

[PDUB]

Looks like the NHTSA has finally provided the info to allow this to move forward!


https://www.foxnews.com/auto/new-reg...business-boost


Good news for some manufacturers...

[Bojets]

The main requirement is that the vehicle designs must be officially licensed from their original manufacturer and use a powertrain with current emissions controls

[twobjshelbys]

Yeah, everyone was saying this was going to legitimize the Cobra space and new manufacturers would come out of the woodwork and that the majors would be offering complete builds.

Somehow I just don't see 325 people lining up to buy a Superformance Cobra or GT40 replica (which both are licensed) with a LS3 (currently the only engine that qualifies under this plan). Ford's Coyote is NOT on the list (yet... Will they? Who knows). I'm surprised to see Lance saying this. When I spoke to him right after this started he said he wasn't interested because of the long term paperwork they'd have to retain compared to the real projected volumes it would add. You're NOT going to get a completed car for the price of a roller + self installed engine.

[cycleguy55]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Somehow I just don't see 325 people lining up to buy a Superformance Cobra or GT40 replica (which both are licensed) with a LS3 (currently the only engine that qualifies under this plan). Ford's Coyote is NOT on the list.

Coyote may not be on the list, but I believe Ford is selling their Godzilla crate engine and I read somewhere the ECM was going to be made available. Would that not make it a qualified engine?

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

You're NOT going to get a completed car for the price of a roller + self installed engine.

True, but not everyone wants to go that way - some people may be looking for the comfort of a factory built, turnkey, complete vehicle they can write a cheque for and drive away. Don't forget the Aurora and Excalibur Cobras that were built and sold that way. Any yes, I fully realize both companies are no longer in business.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by cycleguy55

Coyote may not be on the list, but I believe Ford is selling their Godzilla crate engine and I read somewhere the ECM was going to be made available. Would that not make it a qualified engine?

No. The manufacturer has to apply and be given a "certificate". Just saying it meets all the rules doesn't make it compliant.

While the article makes it sound like this is something new it's been going on for quite a while, sitting in a do nothing congress that was more interested in impeaching Trump multiple times than attending to operational business of how the government affects its citizens. It must be really slow for this to have bubbled to the top of their to do list.

[PDUB]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

No. The manufacturer has to apply and be given a "certificate". Just saying it meets all the rules doesn't make it compliant.

While the article makes it sound like this is something new it's been going on for quite a while, sitting in a do nothing congress that was more interested in impeaching Trump multiple times than attending to operational business of how the government affects its citizens. It must be really slow for this to have bubbled to the top of their to do list.

as I understand it, the regulatory agency was holding up the works, not congress. Seems they took their time in releasing the details... like years!

[Redfish]

Wondering what this may mean (if anything) for how CT treats ‘composite’ cars in the future.

[Mark IV]

Originally Posted by Redfish

Wondering what this may mean (if anything) for how CT treats ‘composite’ cars in the future.

Cars built under this provision will carry a "WMI" VIN and will be federally certified so states will accept them just like any other new car. The manufacturer of record will be identified and will show up in databases used by DMVs, banks and insurance companies.

[Redfish]

Thanks Mark, good intel. Curious if/when the manufacturer of record is in the CT database, could a kit car be registered under the same manufacturer as the complete car, rather than a ‘composite’.

Not sure if it would help or hurt my tax situation…and not sure the tax assessor gives a sh!t, they’ll just tax it as high as they want regardless.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by Redfish

Thanks Mark, good intel. Curious if/when the manufacturer of record is in the CT database, could a kit car be registered under the same manufacturer as the complete car, rather than a ‘composite’.

Not sure if it would help or hurt my tax situation…and not sure the tax assessor gives a sh!t, they’ll just tax it as high as they want regardless.

It won't affect the existing Cobra (and GT40, etc) market at all.

Most likely the new complete vehicles will be taxed as a new modern vehicle by the value paid. They get a new emissions compliant engine so they can be emissions tested just like any other 2022 model year car. If it costs 100K expect to pay taxes on it just like a 100K Jeep Wagoneer (which they are, by the way) I doubt seriously states are going to consider it a 65 vehicle and tax it based on a depreciated 65... States want revenue. They'll maximize it. I expect CT and other new england states will be especially greedy.

[CompFi]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

I expect CT and other new england states will be especially greedy.

Here in Vermont, we do not pay an annual excise tax on cars. Houses? Most definitely. But not for cars. For now anyway..... Though this still worries me, as our solution here in VT to everything is raising taxes.

Anyone have any additional insights specific to VT?

Thanks again for yet another informative thread.

[eschaider]

Originally Posted by CompFi

Here in Vermont, we do not pay an annual excise tax on cars. Houses? Most definitely. But not for cars. For now anyway..... Though this still worries me, as our solution here in VT to everything is raising taxes.

Anyone have any additional insights specific to VT?

Thanks again for yet another informative thread.

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.

[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).

[Redfish]

Unfortunately, I agree with you.

Not saying they’d depreciate it to 1965, but if there becomes set published prices for the complete vehicles, possible prices would be published for the kits, based on manufacturer. Assess me based on the kit I bought, not a Kirkham.

[sunman]

Google up:
“Replica-Vehicles-Final-Rule- 02 22 2022”
Everything above is inaccurate.
You could buy the Classic Roadsters moulds and ownership, build frames with Bob Bennett Excalibur drawings, use the 50 state legal LS3 E-Rod motors and sell cars.
You got to call them “Classic 427s” not Cobra though.
Ask FFR about that, the shape is open source.
FFR, ERA, anyone could sell them

[Mark IV]

Originally Posted by sunman

Google up:
“Replica-Vehicles-Final-Rule- 02 22 2022”
Everything above is inaccurate.
You could buy the Classic Roadsters moulds and ownership, build frames with Bob Bennett Excalibur drawings, use the 50 state legal LS3 E-Rod motors and sell cars.
You got to call them “Classic 427s” not Cobra though.
Ask FFR about that, the shape is open source.
FFR, ERA, anyone could sell them

Note that the law requires a manufacturer to "be licensed by the holder of the I.P./trade dress" if they still exist. Therefor you cannot buy the moulds from a replica company and go into production and be covered under the regulations. And, yes, currently the only AFTERMARKET certified engine is the GM LS. But just because Ford doesn't sell a 5.0 Coyote via Ford Racing, does not mean it is not available as a "certified powertrain". Ford sells EPA certified "chassis drops" with both the ten-speed automatic and the six-speed manual via Ford Power Products to "OEM manufacturers" for installation in vehicles.

99% of what has been posted is by people who are not in the industry and have no experience with this. I have worked with Autokraft/AC and Ford on the AC MK IV certification as well as with AC Car Group and another manufacturer on "piggyback" EPA certifications. Been there, done that.

[sunman]

Shelby verses FFR verdict was shape is not trademark only “Shelby” “Cobra” .
What I said to read does not say you need manufacture’s license, they changed that.
I know it’s over 100 pages but I’ve read it a few times.
Classic Roadsters you buy all legal rights not just moulds.
They were bought out of bankruptcy.
Good luck getting it to happen, I hear ya.

[eschaider]

Sometimes internet searches can produce information from secondary, tertiary or more remote sources that can sound authoritative but in actual fact are not. It is possible that Sunman has sourced his information from other than the original source.

The authoritative source for information about this particular bill is the NHTSA. NHTSA has published the final version of the bill as it will be entered into the Federal Register and it is available for review in its final configuration at the NHTSA website, https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.go...Disclaimer.pdf, by any interested person

There are several significant tags in the document some of those include;

NHTSA indicates that while this is the final form;

• Typos that might find their way into the document would be corrected for the Federal Register,
  .
• The document ACTION was Final Rule,
  .
• Document PDF page 3 defines the, “Requirement to manufacture under license agreement for intellectual property rights”
  .
• Section 30114(b)(7)(B)(ii) defines “replica motor vehicle” as — is manufactured under a license for the product configuration, trade dress, trademark, or patent, for the motor vehicle that is intended to be replicated from the original manufacturer, its successors or assignees, or current owner of such product configuration, trade dress, trademark, or patent rights.
  .
• Because NHTSA’s domain of expertise is automotive safety, not intellectual property they decided not to require the submission of documentation showing ownership of IP or a license to use that IP. Instead the Final Rule requires the low-volume manufacturer registering as a replica manufacturer to certify that the vehicle will be manufactured under a license for the product configuration, trade dress, trademark, or patent.

There is a great deal more in the 102 pages that the Final Rule speaks to. While I am sure Sunman’s efforts were well intended and hopefully attempting to further everyone’s knowledge, according to official NHTSA documents and the Final Rule his representations are neither accurate nor factual. They are, as we can so easily be mislead, simply internet banter that at best is only remotely related to the real world entry that will actually go into the Federal Register controlling this process.

Bottom line a license is required and as of today only one replica manufacturer has one.

[twobjshelbys]

I think the whole thing is academic. The entire process was created started at a time when the potential existed for a fairly good sized market, but that market was in fact fixed and small and declining, and not capable of supporting a large number of manufactures, even for some vehicles, only one.

Since then the consumer pool has shrunk. Let's face it, 20 year olds aren't interested in Cobras, and most of the people here while they love their Cobras, aren't going to be willing to spend the money on a fully compliant turnkey car. A roller + power train from even the cheapest kit will now approach 100K. A fully completed car with warrantied power train and the builder/dealer overhead will realistically approach 200k.

The TAM for this kind of car in fiberglass is practically nil. Why? Because you can get a Kirkham roller and finish it for the same price.

The TAM is fixed and very small for a price point in the 200K range. Get all of the current viable Cobra kit makers in the market and none of them will make enough to make it a profitable venture. If they do attrition will take care of supply vs demand quickly.

I don't think there will be more than a handful of participants and their volumes will no where approach the limits.

Kit Cobras will continue to be popular. But the TAM (Total Available Market) for them decreases daily as the TAM ages.

Like I said, a status report in a year will tell what really is happening.

[Mark IV]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

I think the whole thing is academic. The entire process was created started at a time when the potential existed for a fairly good sized market, but that market was in fact fixed and small and declining, and not capable of supporting a large number of manufactures, even for some vehicles, only one.

Since then the consumer pool has shrunk. Let's face it, 20 year olds aren't interested in Cobras, and most of the people here while they love their Cobras, aren't going to be willing to spend the money on a fully compliant turnkey car. A roller + power train from even the cheapest kit will now approach 100K. A fully completed car with warrantied power train and the builder/dealer overhead will realistically approach 200k.

The TAM for this kind of car in fiberglass is practically nil. Why? Because you can get a Kirkham roller and finish it for the same price.

The TAM is fixed and very small for a price point in the 200K range. Get all of the current viable Cobra kit makers in the market and none of them will make enough to make it a profitable venture. If they do attrition will take care of supply vs demand quickly.

I don't think there will be more than a handful of participants and their volumes will no where approach the limits.

Kit Cobras will continue to be popular. But the TAM (Total Available Market) for them decreases daily as the TAM ages.

Like I said, a status report in a year will tell what really is happening.

The TAM may not 325 units, it may not be 200, it may only be 50 (BTW, the original proposal was for 500 units per manufacturer, but it was opposed. Guess by who? GM! Like the extra 175 was gonna cut into their share!)

The market for these "turn-key" cars is the disposable income buyer who:

1) Sees a car, wants it and lays the money down, instant gratification

2) Wants a car, but doesn't want to deal with the build-out, registration process, etc.

3) Needs to finance with the car as collateral, something with very limited sources now as most banks assign NO value to a car who's VIN doesn't show in the system

4) Wants a "real" car (I know, this is a stretch) with a warranty and some sort of support

There IS a market. Is it huge? No. Does it exist? Yes.