Classic car market threatened by new congress bill

[2fast4u]

http://myclassicgarage.com/social/posts/103635-big-manufacturers-could-start-reproducing-classic-cars-with-new-bill?wv_email=tbatch38@gmail.com&utm_source=Email&utm_medium=WeeklyEmail&utm_campaign=15email

[RallyeMike]

Sort of like how the reproduction Cobra's have destroyed the value of the original ones 

[2fast4u]

  IMO, If this comes to pass, the cars that are made will still be overpriced!  Still out of reach for the little guy!   

[myk]

There's still something to be said about originality.  A show winning, top condition all original A12 Super Bee from the glory days will always have a decided edge in popularity and desire over a modern reproduction.  Be that as it may, I find it unlikely that large automakers will take much time to dedicate their precious resources into developing old cars into new ones, that presumably won't be purchased by anyone but the niche market anyway.  And how much would these "new classics" cost?  I'd bet that the Hellcat Daytona they mentioned would be AT LEAST Challenger Hellcat territory cost wise and probably a lot more, considering how much development would be necessary to make it happen.

I think the Mecum and BJ crowd won't have to worry about this bill in the least bit.  It's a cute idea but it will never gain the traction with the public to ever be a serious threat to the classic rip-off market...

[skip68]

I'll buy 2.    
One will be a driver and the other will be on blocks in storage for 25 years.   

[F8-4life]

It sounds like a cool idea just from a quick read through. I'm curious as to what is behind this bill, what are they trying to make if anything?
It would be better for the hobby as a whole I think and allow more people to enjoy the cars.
How much it affects the old car market would depend on how popular the remakes are, and you can bet they will make a 25,000 1969 charger look cheap.

[skip68]

If a new charger was made it would probably be around the $35k to $$40k range.  Base price.   I don't think a new one could be made for $25k.        
Also, wouldn't Dodge have to sell the licensing to allow it.   

[Baldwinvette77]

This is a bad thing??? Im all for classic cars getting cheaper 

[myk]

Classic cars have been reissued/remanufactured for years and they're EXPENSIVE, as in 6 figures expensive.  There's no reason why anything produced from this bill would be any cheaper.  Why would it be?  It's not as if someone is going to walk into a dealership and ask themselves "hmmm.....should I buy a new Dart or a Hellcat GTX tribute Scat Pak Edition Plus?"  Only the well heeled buyer need apply for a "new" classic car, as no company is going to mass produce a new-classic to the point that it is financially reasonable for the common buyer.  And all of this depends on whether the large car makers can even be bothered with such a niche idea for a niche market...

[taxspeaker]

I think liability insurance will keep it from happening.

[Stevearino]

Dynacorn ( http://www.dynacorn.com/) has been chomping at the bit to do complete cars for a while. I have seen their 69 Camaro body in white and the 68 Mustang fastback. This bill will essentially allow them to build complete cars for niche market that wants them. Judging from the fact that the current bodies in white are $20,000 plus I would say the complete cars will be more in the $60,000.00 and up range. And as with the restarted NOS Shelby Cobras they will create their own category separate from the original cars. The only downside I think is the hopes of some that there will be an extensive line of classic cars coming available. That seems less likely. Just take the example of the reproduction of the 70 Charger front clip sheet metal. The cars you will see are most likely going to be the cars that sold in huge numbers back in the day. Unfortunately tons and tons of Camaros and Mustangs.

[kanadanmajava]

I have pretty much zero interest for any modern cars so I think that this sounds really good. Not that it helps me as I live in a different country but it would still be nice to have more "new" old cars.

[Ghoste]

I like the idea better than resto"modding" a classic one.  Get a new body and booger the shit out of it.

[Aero426]

It would be interesting to know who in the industry lobbied for a bill like this, and why.     I don't get it.     You have to think the cost of a complete car would be a deal breaker.    Is there some outside the box reason that has not been made clear?    

More worrysome for us than the legislation (which hasn't been passed) should be the lack of new blood and a next generation to handle the existing market of cars.  

[2fast4u]

   Maybe it's a part of a bigger plan to be rid of older cars?!

   You do remember the Gov. did try this once before!! The klunker car thing was testing the waters.

   Now maybe they're coming at it from another angle.   

[Cncguy]

Way too expensive to tool up for 500 cars. I don't see this happening.

[LaOtto70Charger]

The clunker car thing though was to help incentivize people into buying brand new vehicles to keep the factories and people working.  It did get rid of a lot beaters but probably not that many classic cars.

[Ghoste]

It got rid of some, and some parts cars too.  The whole permanent disable thing.

[2fast4u]

The clunker car thing though was to help incentivize people into buying brand new vehicles to keep the factories and people working.  It did get rid of a lot beaters but probably not that many classic cars.

My point exactly!  It did move a lot of the old usless cars that were from the late '70's through the '80's, which inspired john q public to buy another car, some where new!
   
  Now they are targeting the muscle car era in reverse, buy a new 69 charger body with new technology and better emissions. Afterwards they will tell us we have what we need and no longer need the older cars with poor emissions!
 
  I don't know guys but it smells fishy to me!!

[Mike DC]

             
Nobody stands to make big money by getting 50yo cars scrapped. 

Even as a bullshit Greenie argument, it's getting harder & harder to sell that idea anymore.  Our cars are just too rare & far-removed from widespread daily transportation. 

[Stevearino]

             
Nobody stands to make big money by getting 50yo cars scrapped. 

Even as a bullshit Greenie argument, it's getting harder & harder to sell that idea anymore.  Our cars are just too rare & far-removed from widespread daily transportation. 

This may be true Mike but when have the facts ever been relevant when trying to whip up hysteria over smelly old cars?

[ws23rt]

             
Nobody stands to make big money by getting 50yo cars scrapped.  

Even as a bullshit Greenie argument, it's getting harder & harder to sell that idea anymore.  Our cars are just too rare & far-removed from widespread daily transportation.  

This may be true Mike but when have the facts ever been relevant when trying to whip up hysteria over smelly old cars?

I tend to agree. Facts are not high in relevance when an emotional group whips up a chant. The large number of sheep (that don't know which way to go) tend to follow those they look to for direction and will do so with the same baseless motives.

What is the trend?   What is in?  And most important who do they want to be seen agreeing with?

[Brock Lee]

This could help us!

If companies like Dynacorn stand to make money off even limited runs of reproduction cars, that means they will tool up to build at the very least, new bodies and sheetmetal that are the core of the car being reproduced. The investment into reverse engineering and producing those components will be factored into the money being made on the run of cars.

That means they can:
Factor in costs of engineering and tooling parts into the expenses of the runs.

Design parts that are not just reproductions, but adjusted so final assembly is cleaner (they will not be building 500 cars doing all the trimming and BS required with modern parts)

Offer a complete range of body components, not just the items most likely to sell.

Offer body components for less money as the expenses for production are spread out over the body runs. Versus strictly selling parts where the tooling costs for not just that part, but future parts are built into the price.

[Mike DC]

This may be true Mike but when have the facts ever been relevant when trying to whip up hysteria over smelly old cars?



I tend to agree. Facts are not high in relevance when an emotional group whips up a chant. The large number of sheep (that don't know which way to go) tend to follow those they look to for direction and will do so with the same baseless motives.

What is the trend?   What is in?  And most important who do they want to be seen agreeing with?

The facts don't matter when someone stands to make some money or boost their political career.  I doubt there will be a big opportunity for either one at this point.  Maybe a slight political boost but not much.  On the other hand SEMA (fighting back) has gotten more organized & powerful lately.

Even something done to please the Greenies will probably get written to target what Detroit wants cleared off the road to boost their sales.  That's 1990-2010 cars now.    





My theory:

When in doubt about how a new law/ruling/policy will play out, look for some way for it to end up hurting those lowest on the socioeconomic ladder.  

Vintage musclecar owners are definitely not that group today.  Today that group needs all the decent running 1994 sedans they can get.  So that's probably what will end up getting targeted one way or another.

[Ghoste]

Yeah I think you probably nailed it Mike.