By on June 12, 2015

Factory Five Mk4 Roadster

Has the thought of assembling a replica vehicle put you off of buying one? Thanks to Congress, you may soon be able to buy a factory-direct turnkey model.

U.S. House Resolution 2675 — the “Low Volume Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Act of 2015” — is a bipartisan bill sponsored by Representatives Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma and Gene Green of Texas. According to Autoblog, the resolution would grant low-volume vehicle manufacturers — those producing no more than 500 units per year — the right to sell their wares direct from the factory with no assembly required, instead of only shipping them as kits to their customers as occurs now.

Though the vehicles would still need to follow safety and environmental standards as set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, those standards would be applied separately from high-volume manufacturers.

HR 2675 was introduced last week, and will arrive before the House Energy and Commerce Committee at a yet-to-be-determined date.

[Photo credit: Factory Five Racing/Facebook]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

32 Comments on “US House Resolution Would Allow Factory-Direct Turnkey Replica Vehicles...”

  • avatar

    I want a new…

    -IH scout (Navistar)
    -H2 Hummer (AM General)
    -GMT800 anything with biggest engine(GM)
    -1st Gen K5 (GM)

    Too bad it won’t happen. There are only 3-4 vehicles I would buy today, certainly can’t have me buying a new vehicle that isn’t an IPhone integrated turbo charged lawnmower engine mobile.

  • avatar

    Slightly off topic, but not entirely (I think). I beg someone at TTAC (preferabley Mr Baruth) to test this out:

  • avatar
    healthy skeptic

    Great start!

    Now if only we get that cap raised to about 500,000, or maybe 5,000,000. Or have the cap eliminated all-togehter. In other words, make things as they should be, and should have been all along.

  • avatar
    bumpy ii

    All we have to do is repatriate the Tsuru tooling from Mexico, and B13s for all!

  • avatar

    They still need to come up with a way to legalize cars like the Ariel Atom, Polaris Slingshot, and other limited use race/sports cars.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    The Slingshot is very much a street legal motorcycle. The three wheels allow it to circumvent standard issues plaguing others who have, let’s say, four wheels. No more need for airbags, crumple zones, blah blah

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    Why can’t manufacturers sell their expired tooling and equipment to the aftermarket coach builders?

    Really no different then buying generic drugs instead of name brands after a certain time. Yes please on a K5.

  • avatar

    “Though the vehicles would still need to follow safety and environmental standards as set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, those standards would be applied separately from high-volume manufacturers.”

    Ummmm….how exactly do you get a vintage 427 Cobra replica to meet EPA or NHTSA regulations, anyway?

    • 0 avatar

      The EPA part is pretty easy if you have a donor drivetrain out of anything from the fuel-injected/catalytic converter era. Not sure about the NHTSA part, you can only assume they mean thing like headlights instead of crash testing.

    • 0 avatar
      87 Morgan

      I am fairly certain the cars are titled as 67’s or something along those lines, thus avoiding regs.

      • 0 avatar

        Depends on the state. Mine was registered as a 94 in Iowa and a 1971 in CA (pre-SB100). Now in CA it can be registered SB100 as a 1965 or whatever the body style replicates.

    • 0 avatar
      Athos Nobile

      I skimmed through the bill. It can be done, as the replica has to meet the regulations when the car was originally launched, not the current ones.

      What will make this expensive, if that, if I read correctly, the replica has to be OEM licensed/authorised. That will take a lot of the players off. The engine also has to be fitted according to OEM instructions regarding emissions, with all the required labelling.

  • avatar

    I wonder who Messers. Mullin and Green are trying to help out? Or are they starting their own low volume car company?

  • avatar

    500 is too low. The number needs to be near at the lower limit of what the big manufacturers will produce before they deem something not worth their effort (unless the vehicle is almost pure profit for them.) Somewhere between 1 and 5 thousand would be more appropriate.

    • 0 avatar

      It won’t matter. The cars these makers will turn out will appeal to such a small share of the market that demand will be the limiting factor, not the law.

      • 0 avatar

        I agree with you, but the 500 figure was likely chosen to keep the pricing artificially high which would further limit niche appeal. 5,000 would have been a better figure as I see it as unlikely most if any of these marques could hit this figure thus the whole market is satisfied.

  • avatar

    If this passes, somebody’s snowflake child is eventually going to kill himself in a factory built FFR Cobra, when he might have survived with side protection, air bags, etc. Then this’ll all come to an end.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • N8iveVA: bd2; “so that leaves ATP for the SC.” Does anyone pay anything near sticker price for a Hyundai?...
  • FreedMike: Imagine the tax credit for one of those diesel electric subs.
  • Flipper35: Now I know how to talk my wife into a Power Wagon. Tell her it is this or the PW.
  • Art Vandelay: You don’t really see them, but there are a bunch of them cruising around under the ocean at any...
  • FreedMike: I don’t know, when was the last time a frivolous lawsuit in another country caused a carmaker to...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber