Kit cars get respect

I'm not sure I want the government, snooping around our world.  They may think we are their next tax source.

I'll take it. Some universal legal clarity would be welcome.

Art's right - I see a carbon foot print and smog tax coming.  Plus there will be required stickers --- "driving these cars may be hazardous to your health."

Careful what you wish for, Stan; these are strictly "pleasure vehicles", and if the wrong bureaucrat sinks his teeth into this it could get ugly...

Maybe I'm going against the grain, and becoming less paranoid as I age.  What I see going on is fairly unremarkable.  From my perspective, it neither adds cachet nor exposes owners to new taxes.  What it does is eliminate the legal fiction used by replica companies and their customers that forces owners to state that they built the car themselves, or, in the alternative, added significant value to the build process by their labor.

This sleight of hand above seems to make all the parties happy: the manufacturers are in compliance with the regulators, registration bureaucrats have their boxes checked, and the owners are in compliance with their state regs.  

Of course, it's all nonsense, but no one has seemed to care until now.  SEMA deserves our kudos, not our concerns or condemnation.  Imagine how much easier it would be to buy or sell a replica if 49 of our 50 states had comparable registration requirements.  California will likely have its own policy for our lifetimes.

Unless I'm misreading this part (as I usually do), the proposed bill could pretty much put an end to the creation of air-cooled VW-based Speedster replicas:

"...Manufacturers would be required to register with NHTSA and EPA and submit annual reports on the vehicles they produce. The vehicles would meet current model year emissions standards and manufacturers would be permitted to install clean engines from other EPA-certified vehicles to help achieve that requirement..."

Or many of our vendors would continue to fly under the radar, as "restorers" of old VW's and not as builders of new cars.

If the feds get serious about enforcing this, the only viable choice for us might be Suby power.

I read it exactly the same as Sacto on this one.  Current emissions and all.....

^^^What Mitch said^^^ We don't want people looking any closer at our cars than they already do. And yeah, I'm Canadian and wouldn't be affected right away by any change in laws south of the border, but these things have a nasty habit of eventually making their way up over the 49th....

My apologies to Mitch and the group.  I just read the proposed bill in its current draft state, as I should have done prior to commenting.  

The emissions standard that would seem to apply is the standard for the year in which the replica is produced, not the year the replica emulates.  Thus, a replica made in 2015 would have to pass 2015 federal emissions standards.  Clearly, a VW air-cooled engine would not qualify.  There is even more onerous and troubling language included in the bill.  The replica manufacturer needs to present documentary evidence that they have an agreement with the original car maker (which the replica emulates) to produce the replica, or evidence that copyright, trade mark, or trade dress rights have been abandoned for at least three years.  Will that language force a sea change in Porsche's current reluctance to enforce its trade mark?

Google HR 2675 to read the current draft version.  Of course, the bill in its present state may not pass, and there may be a back story here that we don't know about.  However, if there is, SEMA isn't discussing it on its website.  I have been and will continue to be a SEMA fan, and appreciate the work they have done with legislators to keep our car hobby viable.

However, from my second reading, this bill does not advance the interests of car hobbyists.  I have e-mailed two SEMA staffers in an attempt at clarification.  I will let others know what I find out when they respond.  From my perspective, there is a disconnect between what seems to be the feds doing what feds do, i.e., attempting to increase their mandate, and SEMA's acceptance of same.  

Apologies once again. More to follow.

I don't know the specific politics here, but legislation like this is almost always created to favor one group or interest over another, no matter how righteous and folksy the language in the bill is.

Someone generally stands to make a bundle if it passes or lose a bundle if it doesn't.

The authors claim the bill will "...promote domestic manufacturing and create jobs in the specialty auto sector..."

I can think of quite a few such jobs that will be going away if it becomes law.

As Jon Stewart said recently, it would help us all understand a lot about how government works if legislators were required to wear sponsors' patches on their suits, like NASCAR drivers do.

Deja vu all over again.

"Promote domestic manufacturing and create jobs in the specialty auto sector"

Here we go again.  Any time we are fed a description of some bill thats going to hurt freedom it comes disguised with a description that is the opposite of the real intent.  (Lawyers do this, you know? Shakespere was right.)

Remember the title used to get Obamacare through; "The affordable health care act"

This "here we go again" proposed law sure isn't attractive friom what I can see and even if Suby power will get around the emissions requirement, I can't see Porsche blessing Speedster replicas.

As semi-organized "club" we should get better organized to lobby our legislators to kill this in it's infancy.

Thanks to JIm and Mitch for digging into this and explaining what it means.

OK, upon clarification: support withdrawn.

Concerning the first post in this thread, by "Gwantocruz"  (Jeez--can we please use our names???!)

 Anyway, the link Gwan posted says "SEMA will be working with Congressional leaders to promote this important bill."

A damned shame.

Remember..."I'm from your Government trust me we're here to help you "

A case of a new regulation where one is not needed. I think the EPA will eventually restrict the use of cars that don't pass emission standards. I hope it doesn't happen for a long time, but I believe it will happen some day.  The simple fact is, that the people who respect old cars and retro stuff in general, are also old and we're dying off.  When the EPA, an unelected body, is full of save the planet whipersnapers , our cars will be museum pieces. (I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.)

Craigr,

  A variation, I'm from the FAA, and we're not happy till you aren't !

That means they probably wouldn't be able to use any used engines at all. For example, pull an engine from a 2010 car and it may not meet the 2015 regs. It's tough to retrofit emissions equipment if the engine didn't originally come with it.

As far as the licensing stuff, the only replica manufacturer I can think of that does that now is Superformance. If that part gets adopted, it'll likely destroy 99% of the replica market.

Stuart Gosswein (StuartG@sema.org) is one of the contact persons at SEMA on this issue.  I e-mailed him the following last night:

Hi Stuart, 

If I am reading the draft copy of HR 2675 correctly, the emissions standards for replica engines will be the same as the model year in which the replica is produced.  I currently own a Porsche Speedster replica.  Over 90% of this type of replica uses a VW air-cooled engine.  There is no way these engines will pass current smog regs, thus dooming their use if the current bill is passed.  Am I reading the bill correctly?  Is there something else I am missing?  In the past, SEMA has always helped the car industry.  This bill doesn't seem designed to do that.  Perhaps I am missing the back story.  Regards, Jim Kelly

Stuart's response in my next reply.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the inquiry.  Hobbyists will still be allowed to construct kit cars and install the engine of their choice.  The law only applies to companies that want to produce a completed vehicle so that enthusiasts like me can purchase a turn-key car.  For those completed cars, they need to contain a current MY clean engine with basic onboard diagnostic system controls.  GM is already producing and offering such a system (called "eRod that is recognized by California as being compliant.

Emissions standards are enforced at the state level.  Most states have titling and registration categories that recognize kit cars for the model years they replicate (ex: '32 Ford, '63 Cobra).  Many states provide an emissions exemption for the kit cars based on the model year they replicate.  California provides an exemption to the first 500 cars registered, and then requires the eRod-type engine/emissions systems for the others.

We are working with a number of kit car manufacturers that are okay with the clean engine requirement.  They will be able to purchase an engine from GM, Ford, etc. and then hook up a basic emissions/onboard diagnostic system.  Most importantly, they will still be able to sell kit cars to enthusiasts who want to install the engine of their choice, subject to state registration requirements.

Hope that answers the question.  Let me know if you have any follow-up questions.  Best, Stuart

Stuart Gosswein

Sr. Director, Federal Government Affairs

Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA)

1317 Street NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20004-1105

202/783-6007, ext 30

Sounds to me like our question is but one: "How do we defeat this bill?"  Nothing I read here gives reason for liking this regulation.  Second question, already asked: "What is REALLY behind this effort?"

SEMA's response is disappointing.  It's the party line blow-off in my opinion.  I can see how it would be of slight benefit to certain companies, such as a large maker of Cobras, who currently uses a late model engine with OBD-II diagnostics already and has an agreement with Shelby re copyright.

I see no benefit for any of the Speedster replica owners/future owners.  Since "hobbyists will still be allowed to construct kit cars and install the engine of their choice", the basic premise of the current state of manufacturing remains the same.  Whether Porsche will become the 900-lb gorilla in the room remains to be seen. 

"...The law only applies to companies that want to produce a completed vehicle so that enthusiasts like me can purchase a turn-key car.  For those completed cars, they need to contain a current MY clean engine with basic onboard diagnostic system controls.  GM is already producing and offering such a system (called "eRod that is recognized by California as being compliant..."

Aha, this might shed some light on what could be going on here.

GM goes to the trouble of developing and marketing their 'eRod' engine - basically a production GM engine packaged to be installed in any car and to be - abracadabra - EPA-friendly out of the box.

Maybe the eRod program wasn't producing the sales figures GM suits were expecting because most hot rodders seem to find ways around complying with smog laws. Wouldn't it be nice for GM if low-volume kit car builders were now required by law to install engines like the eRod?

If I were GM and wanted to draft such a law, I think it might look a lot like HR 2675.

Now, I could be totally wrong about this - being the cynical skeptic that I am - but I've found that when it comes to figuring out how quirky little laws like this come to be, cynical skepticism usually comes a lot closer to the mark than naive altruism.

By the way, has anyone contacted Carey Hines about how suitable the 5.3- and 6.2-liter eRod V-8's would be for installation in a Speedster?

The murky world of "legislative intent" is always hard to decipher without inside knowledge.  However, in this instance, I think you may have it wrong.  GM's target audience is, at a minimum, in the hundreds of thousands of units, whereas the replica market is tiny.  This exception only applies to companies that produce less than 500 units/year.  However, the replica companies themselves may be the reason for the bill.  One congressman is from TX, the other from OK, so it could be a replica company with branches in one or both states.  The company has likely already cut a deal with Shelby for trademark concerns, and has a target customer base that is uncomfortable stating that they actually built the car, as opposed to having it built by ABC/XYZ Cobras.  If the above is true, all the elements of the bill would favor their company.

I would think that all Subi engines retrofitted to Speedster replicas would be OBD-II compliant, since the ECU wouldn't work without it.  Maybe someone that has a Beck or IM Subi can correct me if I am wrong about that.  I know the SAS Subi engines are compliant.

In any event, the benefit of the bill does not seem centered on the consumer.  Maybe as the bill morphs through the legislative process, more will be revealed.

RE: Jim's comment about OBD-II compliance...

I think the real issue would be the draft legislation's requirement is that emissions would be based on the year in which the replica is produced...

If emissions standards change for 2016, isn't it possible an old Subi OBD-II compliant engine would no longer be clean enough?

Well, IF you have a recently produced engine (say, 2005 or newer), Subaru or otherwise, even if it has a late model ECU and EFI system, BUT you put an after-market exhaust on it and DO NOT run a compatible and well-designed catalytic converter system, most likely you will NOT pass current emmissions tests.

While later engines are somewhat cleaner by themselves because of running leaner burn cycles, it's the Cat Converter that does the majority of the scrubbing work.  Delete that from the equation and the overall system gets pretty dirty.  

Didn't Marty's IM come with a couple of CATs??  If so, sounds like Henry's doing it right.

Gordon, my original Subaru engine had one CAT. The other piece was a flex pipe and an O2 sensor. The new Turbo engine has an additional stock CAT in the up pipe but I had Henry remove and go with a performance piece that is Catless. The OEM one fails after a while and this one is indestructible.  I'll have a normal CAT after the exhaust headers.

Well, not only would you need an ECU that is ODB compliant (megasquirt and many other aftermarket ECU's aren't), the engine would also have to include whatever emissions equipment it's supposed to have for that year. PCV valve, EGR valve, air pump, EVAP canister, purge valve, fuel temp sensor, fuel tank pressure sensor and valve, fuel tank vent and drain valves, catalytic converter, pre- and post-cat O2 sensors, etc.

Now like the e-rod engine mentioned, not all of that crap is strictly necessary as long as the (new) engine manufacturer can get it certified with whatever it does have.

This is a BAD bill. California for once got it right with 500 special registrations a year, with emission waiver for life.

If this bill is before Congress, then it is national. NOT GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!