340R -- Is the DMV on crack?

[tvacc]

Good find.

I had only seen the 1st one. That could have been read to mean that if you take out the engine and tranny, you were ok.

but the second one is tough.

You would have to find out what and how much modification is needed to essentially "change" the car.

After reading the second one, I dont think that is possible and I am sure there are many here that do not meet that test.

[ggelise]

Buy/import it sans motor (chassis w/parts or just parts) put in a supercharged Honda motor in it and enjoy your specialty vehicle! There are a million kit cars on the road legally. There are a significant number of car registered this way and not a one has had an issue that I have discovered in the two years looking into this prior to purchasing a s1 chassis to do the same thing. A guy in FL got in trouble years ago but he did not go through the steps required (imported standard cars) and thus an accident exposed his error. Another guy had to sell his converted car that was imported by a Mircosoft executive on a limited permit. This was converted to Honda power but again he screwed up buying a complete car with a vin that was imported for a limited duration. The process is very similar (not the same) to how Noble etc are able to sell cars as rolling chassis w/o motors. Sun International did it for years but they were licensed to give the cars a new vin if necessary and there are other companies that can do the same thing. Go through these steps, document everything and talk to those who have done it and enjoy your car. Seriously, look at all the siht on the road with registrations. Are the secret police going to start rounding up the dune buggies and start crushing them?

[Tpup]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

Guys like me, huh? I'm glad you know me so well.

Hypocrite.

oh, ok. I guess I cannot trust what you say, I need to get to know you...

The "ps" was a joke...

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by Tpup

oh, ok. I guess I cannot trust what you say, I need to get to know you...

The "ps" was a joke...

So after learning something from my DMV that I thought was in error I start a thread trying to learn what is legal and possible. That makes me a "guys like you." Perhaps the DMV lady really is correct and I could buy a 340R and use it legally on the road. Hmmm, I wonder... I have a neighbor with a "car" that he designed and built in his garage. He has tags on it and drives it without any problem. It barely passes for a go-kart and it was possible for him to register it for the road. Maybe the DMV lady is actually right here in this state. Perhaps the DMV lady is on crack. Therefore, I ask.

This all came about after a dealer informed me that although the 340R was not road legal in his state, it may be in mine and suggested that I contact my state DMV. That is what I did. I was under the impression that the 340R was only "off road use" and was surprised by what the DMV told me. Hence the thread to find out more information about it.

We have several cars in my neighborhood that do not meet federal or EPA standards that are legally being driven. I don't think that the 340R not meeting the "clean air act" really has anything to do with why they can not be "federally" road registered. If it was really because of the "clean air act" then the feds would be required to mandate out all of the beaters with the antique tags that, as previously stated, are spewing out noxious emissions. I have had multiple antique cars in my life and none of them would meet the then current federal regulations. My current Seven doesn't meet current EPA standards or many DOT regulations (Bumpers? Ha.). It just happens to be almost as old as I am and no longer required to meet them. I can drive it on the road without any problems but I can't drive an S1 Elise or Europa S because why? Both of those cars are far cleaner than my Model T was or my Seven is. I think someone just didn't pay enough to someone else. I guess I could wait until Senator "Soandso" wants a 340R and they suddenly become legal.

Reread my first post and the bold wording in post #17. I'm trying to learn something here and get pegged into "guys like you." Nice.

Try this link, perhaps it will be useful to you . For Tpup

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by tvacc

There is one other way to get a 340r or similar car on the road leagally.

You can import a car without engine/tranny as "parts". Then find a suitable replacement US legal engine and have it registered the same way that the Caterhams, Birkins, and other "kit" cars are registered.

There is a fine line. It can no longer be a "car" when it comes into the country. There are many 190's and such in the USA that way...as well as a hell of a lot of Caterhams/Birkins.....etc...etc.

I have often thought of doing that with the 340r or the 211.

Oh...as long at the insurance company knows what you are insuring, they cannot deny a claim. A kit car is a kit car.

nope... the 340 was issued a manufacturers (non-federal) VIN. it is a production car - not a kit car, not a home built. (these fall under different state police registration laws)

again, and i will say it again - tagging and insuring it in "a" state is one thing - the federal laws that you will be liable to is an entirly 'nother matter! - its not worth the risk of breaking the federal laws that apply here.

as a final note - if you think you have come up with some brilliant idea that nobody has though of yet..... if it were that easy, there would bee renault spyders, 340r,and tvr tuscan and sargis here in country for sale - and i would have allready had one long ago.

[tvacc]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

I'm trying to learn something here and get pegged into "guys like you." Nice.
[/url]

Not everyone here is of the same mind on this matter.

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by tvacc

Not everyone here is of the same mind on this matter.

Yeah, I know. That "guys like you" comment just got my goat.

I think that this is all a political money issue really. It doesn't have anything to do with safety, 2.5mph bumpers, "clean air" or anything other than politicians, insurance execs, etc. getting more $$$$ for themselves somehow. I haven't seen a motorcycle with 2.5mph bumpers yet and they are federally legal. I haven't seen a "safe" motorcycle for that matter either. Clean air act? Come on, give me a break... Or maybe I'm mistaken and a '72 Cuda with a straight pipe really does meet EPA regs...

[Tpup]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

So after learning something from my DMV that I thought was in error I start a thread trying to learn what is legal and possible. That makes me a "guys like you." Perhaps the DMV lady really is correct and I could buy a 340R and use it legally on the road. Hmmm, I wonder... I have a neighbor with a "car" that he designed and built in his garage. He has tags on it and drives it without any problem. It barely passes for a go-kart and it was possible for him to register it for the road. Maybe the DMV lady is actually right here in this state. Perhaps the DMV lady is on crack. Therefore, I ask.

This all came about after a dealer informed me that although the 340R was not road legal in his state, it may be in mine and suggested that I contact my state DMV. That is what I did. I was under the impression that the 340R was only "off road use" and was surprised by what the DMV told me. Hence the thread to find out more information about it.

We have several cars in my neighborhood that do not meet federal or EPA standards that are legally being driven. I don't think that the 340R not meeting the "clean air act" really has anything to do with why they can not be "federally" road registered. If it was really because of the "clean air act" then the feds would be required to mandate out all of the beaters with the antique tags that, as previously stated, are spewing out noxious emissions. I have had multiple antique cars in my life and none of them would meet the then current federal regulations. My current Seven doesn't meet current EPA standards or many DOT regulations (Bumpers? Ha.). It just happens to be almost as old as I am and no longer required to meet them. I can drive it on the road without any problems but I can't drive an S1 Elise or Europa S because why? Both of those cars are far cleaner than my Model T was or my Seven is. I think someone just didn't pay enough to someone else. I guess I could wait until Senator "Soandso" wants a 340R and they suddenly become legal.

Reread my first post and the bold wording in post #17. I'm trying to learn something here and get pegged into "guys like you." Nice.

Try this link, perhaps it will be useful to you . For Tpup

OK.

I suspect we are in violent agreement that the law doesn't make since in its current form, however, the law is the law...

[Tpup]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

Yeah, I know. That "guys like you" comment just got my goat.

I think that this is all a political money issue really. It doesn't have anything to do with safety, 2.5mph bumpers, "clean air" or anything other than politicians, insurance execs, etc. getting more $$$$ for themselves somehow. I haven't seen a motorcycle with 2.5mph bumpers yet and they are federally legal. I haven't seen a "safe" motorcycle for that matter either. Clean air act? Come on, give me a break... Or maybe I'm mistaken and a '72 Cuda with a straight pipe really does meet EPA regs...

I disagree with you but lets leave it at that. We are both Lotus nuts.. The basis of my issue here is simple. I have a lot of buddies that work at Lotus. I have in depth knowledge of how difficult it is for Lotus to bring in these cars for track day enthusiasts like me (and you?). The reason that they have to jump through so many hoops is simple, the government does not want these cars to end up on the street. Personally, I want to be able to buy a 211 or some future Lotus track car when I want to. I don't what that option removed due to someone trying to get around the system. My comment got your goat, your post got mine. Enough said...

Roy

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by Tpup

Wow, you actually believe that the purpose of requiring new cars to meet minimum safety and emissions standards is to make money for politicians and insurance execs as opposed to cleaning up the environment and making safer cars? Wow...

Cleaning up the environment? Which do you think is more polluting -- an S1 Elise, a 340R or that '72 Cuda?

Safety standards? Which is safer -- an S1 Elise, a 340R or that '72 Cuda? My Model T didn't even have lap belts.

Go learn and report back here why we have a "federally mandated" 2.5mph bumper requirement and tell me that has anything to do with safety.

If they really wanted to clean up the environment and make cars safer they would have to, again, mandate out all of the antiques (which they don't care about) and/or require that they all be retrofitted with 3 point belts, etc. Oh, but they don't.

[Aedo]

Originally Posted by Tpup

Wow, you actually believe that the purpose of requiring new cars to meet minimum safety and emissions standards is to make money for politicians and insurance execs as opposed to cleaning up the environment and making safer cars? Wow...

I'm agree more with RoadDad than you Tpup here. I don't believe the rules are only in place to protect the environment and to make cars safer (lets face it - the 2.5mph rule has nothing to do with safety) although that is the horse they ride on. I believe that the federal rules are in effect a non-tarif trade barrier to protect the local industry (and therefore the politicians who get voted in by them etc). Australia has a very similar system - ADRs (Australian Design Rules) - these rules are so specific they prevent the importation of many cars.

Two funny things about the ADRs though - left hand drive is forbidden (so US cars largely fail to make it here but this also catches out the super cars like the Enzo, F40, etc) - but several 340R were imported and complied by Lotus so they are available here

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by Tpup

Ok, the story now is that this is a "research" project and you do not intend to drive the car on the road. I got it...

I suspect we are in violent agreement that the law doesn't make since in its current form, however, the law is the law...

The story now? Do you see any posts here having been edited? You think I'm changing my intents because of you? Again, I refer you to post #17. I don't even have any plans to purchase a 340R, let alone drive it on the road.

I do wholeheartedly agree that the law as it is written makes no sense.

[RoadDad]

Tpup, do you ever go even 3mph over the speed limit? You know the law is the law, right?

[mopho]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

If it was really because of the "clean air act" then the feds would be required to mandate out all of the beaters with the antique tags that, as previously stated, are spewing out noxious emissions. I have had multiple antique cars in my life and none of them would meet the then current federal regulations. My current Seven doesn't meet current EPA standards or many DOT regulations (Bumpers? Ha.). It just happens to be almost as old as I am and no longer required to meet them. I can drive it on the road without any problems but I can't drive an S1 Elise or Europa S because why? Both of those cars are far cleaner than my Model T was or my Seven is. I think someone just didn't pay enough to someone else. I guess I could wait until Senator "Soandso" wants a 340R and they suddenly become legal.

I hope you're not serious but I have seen this comment about noxious beaters and antique cars mentioned a couple of times now in this thread. You guys do realize that such cars (and the 72 Cuda) are grandfathered in because they were built before such laws and technology existed right?! Right?
And it is not just the clean air act that the 340r is not legal, but because it doesn't meet crash, airbag, headlight, side impact, seat, etc requirements.


As has been pointed out, it is not federally legal to bring the car here for road use, but that doesn't mean you can't try. Here in CA, you know the so called heavy handed state, there are quite a few Skylines, TVR's and other cars that are not supposed to be here driving around. I personally know a few people with Japanese Kei cars that are registered here. I even have seen a 340r and S1 Elise's on the road here.
I also know someone who had a car confiscated at the customs and another who got a car here played all kinds of tricks to get it registered and then got denied registration.
There is also a guy on the Sevens forum who got a Birkin Seven and then couldn't get it registered in his state, despite the fact that it is a kit car.


So what it really comes down to is; are you a gambling man? You may be able to register it and drive it around, and you may never get caught and enjoy the car for years, but there is also that possibility that you do get caught. So are you willing to take the risk that you might lose the car, even if it is unlikely?

[mopho]

Originally Posted by Aedo

I'm agree more with RoadDad than you Tpup here. I don't believe the rules are only in place to protect the environment and to make cars safer (lets face it - the 2.5mph rule has nothing to do with safety) although that is the horse they ride on. I believe that the federal rules are in effect a non-tarif trade barrier to protect the local industry (and therefore the politicians who get voted in by them etc). Australia has a very similar system - ADRs (Australian Design Rules) - these rules are so specific they prevent the importation of many cars.

Two funny things about the ADRs though - left hand drive is forbidden (so US cars largely fail to make it here but this also catches out the super cars like the Enzo, F40, etc) - but several 340R were imported and complied by Lotus so they are available here

Every country pretty much has such rules

AFAIK 2.5mph bumper is more to limit the amount of body damage to cars from just minor accidents than to save lives. Imagine if every car on the road was like the Elise, where a minor parking lot collision costs $10k to fix...

[wantanelise]

hey, someone may have already asked this, but why not get one of the street legal cars in this class, atom , caterham?


On the other hand there are plenty of people driving kit cars around here that are no way passing fed standards. One guy drives a sprint car on the road entirely legaly. He's been pulled over and let go a dozen times. This is in NY where these kind of things are supposed to be the worst.

[Jon]

I can drive it on the road without any problems but I can't drive an S1 Elise or Europa S because why?

I live in northern VA and saw an S1 elise with VA plates last yr.

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by Tpup

The reason that they have to jump through so many hoops is simple, the government does not want these cars to end up on the street.

That's a bunch of crap. If they didn't want them on the street when they were "safe and clean" based on current technology, then why can I in the year 2026 purchase, import and legally drive a 2001 340R on the street when their "safe and clean" technology is so far off from the 2026 standard? Yeah, that makes sense .

Originally Posted by Tpup

Personally, I want to be able to buy a 211 or some future Lotus track car when I want to.

So wait 25 years and drive it on the road as well or move to Europe where you can register these cars for the road right now.

Originally Posted by Tpup

your post got mine

Which post exactly? The first one where I questioned whether what I was being told by my DMV office was true?

[Tpup]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

Cleaning up the environment? Which do you think is more polluting -- an S1 Elise, a 340R or that '72 Cuda?

Safety standards? Which is safer -- an S1 Elise, a 340R or that '72 Cuda? My Model T didn't even have lap belts.

Go learn and report back here why we have a "federally mandated" 2.5mph bumper requirement and tell me that has anything to do with safety.

If they really wanted to clean up the environment and make cars safer they would have to, again, mandate out all of the antiques (which they don't care about) and/or require that they all be retrofitted with 3 point belts, etc. Oh, but they don't.

I changed my post in order to tone this down but no problem, we can go on. Your post talked about these laws being about "politics" and money for politicians and insurance executives. That's your argument to prove buddy.

I'm not claiming that one of the cars you mention is safer than the other or that one is cleaner than the other. I will claim that a new car legal for sale in the US is safer and cleaner than any car you mentioned. That's the point, new cars must meet minimum standards. Older cars do not. The fact that older cars do not need to meet todays standards does not justify you driving an illegal car on the road.

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by mopho

I hope you're not serious but I have seen this comment about noxious beaters and antique cars mentioned a couple of times now in this thread. You guys do realize that such cars (and the 72 Cuda) are grandfathered in because they were built before such laws and technology existed right?! Right?
And it is not just the clean air act that the 340r is not legal, but because it doesn't meet crash, airbag, headlight, side impact, seat, etc requirements.

Morgan,

I am very much aware of the grandfathered nature of classic cars having owned many. When, however, the argument for not allowing an S1 Elise, Europa S or 340R is "EPA and safety standards" and "wanting to clean up the environment" I get confused. It would do much more "for the environment" and for road "safety" to get all of these grandfathered cars with their 1940s brake technology and spewing engines off the US roads than to limit the sale of many of the currently "illegal due to not meeting EPA and safety standards" cars.

That "grandfathering" that you mention is a rolling grandfathering. 25 years from now all of these cars will be US "road legal," again, when their EPA and safety technology are far below the "25 years from now" standard. That makes sense... Just wait until they are considered even more polluting and less safe then we can make them legal. YEAH! My Seven doesn't even have to have the state mandated annual "safety and emissions" inspection. I just had to "attest" that it is safe when I registered it.

You can't honestly tell me that you think that an S1 Elise, a Europa S or even a 340R without airbags and with its Rover motor (illegal here btw because of, yes, the "environment"...) is less safe and clean than a 1962 Morgan +4, can you?

If it really were all about the "environment and safety" then a lot of old cars would be yanked today. I just don't think that is really the case and the "environment and safety" argument just doesn't seem to hold water for me.