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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.