So you want to buy a Skyline in the US....

[AZhitman]

My issue remains:

VIN = Vehicle Identification Number.

By definition, "vehicle" requires an engine.

Therefore, the car must have an engine to be eligible for a VIN.

This is where I'm at a loss. Other than that, it looks like a good way to get around some of the retarded restrictions.

[SamuraiSam]

kazio kit is a legal dot chassis.... I don’t have issues with this...

GTR drive-train, is an unregulated drive-train that was never approved by the epa... there for is illegal to run in all 50 states... it would be illegally ran even if you hooked it up to a lawnmower.

I understand that most people break epa laws without even knowing they did... but that’s not my point....

GTR drive-train was never approved by epa to be ran in the US period.

besides the ones that were approved i.e. motorex.

Now, if you ran a epa approved motor like a LS1 in a kazio chassis... you'll have a 100% legal car, this is not that same as running a GTR drive-train in a kazio chassis.

Modified by Evo_bill at 9:26 AM 7/22/2008

You are incorrect. According to Sean Morris the RB26 has a Certificate of Conformity from the EPA.--------------There is a Certificate of Conformity for the RB26. I was in contact with the EPA to get a letter saying my car had been modified to federal emissions standards.I enquired about the certificate for the RB26 and they said they would need the engine family or test group number to look it up. A evaporative family number would make it easier to find. Those numbers should be on the under hood decal if there is one, of course I don't have that.--------------here is the info from an EPA label under the hood of a federalized R32 (work done by G&K):

Engine Family: DOH-IL6TEvaporative Family: Canister

[MostH8D]

seriously,

instead of debate it amongst yourselfs with pure speculation. just get on jspecconnect and chat with casey or daryl. you guys are intpreting things all differently.

show me where it says its illegal to have an RB26dett in a car? i want document number and paragraph number.

vin does not have to have and engine by definition. what document says that? what page?

you see what i am getting at. you all are speculating this and should really have it explained by the guys that are doing it.

and i assume when you say drive train you are meaning the engine? i dont think the transmission is included in the epa laws is it?

evo bill...running an rb is just like running a modified us spec engine that doesnt meet federal standards. there is no difference. if there is, i'd like you to show me where it says there is a difference. speculation?

when you hear it from daryl and casey they can make this all make sense. they can put it in layman's terms. none of us here are experts or lawyers as far as i know. let the guys that do this for a living explain it.

[Evo_bill]

either way this isn't worth debating... it all comes down to who get "caught", I'm 100% sure everyone here has a vehical that is breaking atleast 1 federal or state law. Some people here have US spec cars that are breaking more laws then people that have grey gtr here are. So, like I said... this isn't worth debating.... the fed "could" show up at any ones of our houses and take and crush our car for one reason or another reguardless of JDM or USDM.

[SamuraiSam]

either way this isn't worth debating... it all comes down to who get "caught", I'm 100% sure everyone here has a vehical that is breaking atleast 1 federal or state law. Some people here have US spec cars that are breaking more laws then people that have grey gtr here are. So, like I said... this isn't worth debating.... the fed "could" show up at any ones of our houses and take and crush our car for one reason or another reguardless of JDM or USDM.

Thank you for acknowledging my post where I just contradicted your previous statement (with proof) that the RB26 is an illegal engine.

[Vandrel]

[Evo_bill]

Thank you for acknowledging my post where I just contradicted your previous statement (with proof) that the RB26 is an illegal engine.

I still think using the rb26 on public road is violating some federal/state laws, especially in stock form. Call it contradicted, I don’t really care... Either way this isn't worth debating over as most people here are epa/state law offenders anyways.

people who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones....

[Gold Digger]

you see what i am getting at. you all are speculating this and should really have it explained by the guys that are doing it.

when you hear it from daryl and casey they can make this all make sense. they can put it in layman's terms. none of us here are experts or lawyers as far as i know. let the guys that do this for a living explain it.

What we need is for these guys to get on here and put this issue to rest. There are too many "what ifs" that need to be addressed, and these two seem to be the ones to do it.

Talk to them and see if you can get them to register here and come in and explain it to us, in "laymans" terms.

[Evo_bill]

What we need is for these guys to get on here and put this issue to rest. There are too many "what ifs" that need to be addressed, and these two seem to be the ones to do it.

Talk to them and see if you can get them to register here and come in and explain it to us, in "laymans" terms.

At this point this it should be common knowledge that their is no issue with a Kazio GTR... its perfectly legal.

the problem lies with when their customer add an RB motor to the chassis.

Its not so much because now you have nissan GTR, but that your using a motor on public roads that was never approved by federal/state officials. which it seems some people here claim that the rb was magically waived...the only thing I've ever heard of the epa waiving rb's was with motorex, inwhich the owners had to have all kinds of custom cats, sensor, and filters added on their dime.

ultimately every one here breaks the same laws as someone driving a car with an rb, so we shouldn't be discussing this.

someone should lock this thread.

[AZhitman]

instead of debate it amongst yourselfs with pure speculation. just get on jspecconnect and chat with casey or daryl. you guys are intpreting things all differently.

show me where it says its illegal to have an RB26dett in a car? i want document number and paragraph number.

vin does not have to have and engine by definition. what document says that? what page?

Speculation?

Brother, you're confused. Just because someone has a business selling car parts does NOT make them an "expert".

Daryl's more than welcome to get on here and answer all the questions we've asked... Instead, we have people such as yourself CLAIMING to know better than those of us who have researched this ad nauseum.

VEHICLE ELIGIBILITY

In determining whether a vehicle is eligible for importation for show or display, NHTSA will consider the following factors, among others:

1. Whether a vehicle of the same make, model, and model year was manufactured and certified for sale in the United States. 2. Whether a vehicle of the same make, model, and model year has been determined eligible for importation pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593. 3. Whether the vehicle is currently in production. 4. Whether more than 500 of the vehicles were produced. 5. Whether the vehicle is a kit car, replica, or special construction vehicle.

If the answer to any of the above is affirmative, you should NOT expect NHTSA to grant permission for importation. If the answer to item 4 is affirmative, the applicant must establish that the vehicle is of exceptional technological and/or historical significance.

An RB26DETT is not to my knowledge an OBD-II engine. Therefore, it's not emissions-legal. These cars are titled as 2008 model-year cars, right? Therefore, without an emissions exemption, the RB is out.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules...26714

§565.5 Motor vehicles imported into the United States.

(a) Importers shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the motor vehicle.

Of course, this appears to be one part they can skip, since they're supposedly a "manufacturer"... But even that is up for debate as 90+% of the chassis / frame is Nissan componentry.

§565.4 General requirements.

(a) Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer. Each vehicle manufactured in more than one stage shall have a VIN assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Vehicle alterers, as specified in 49 CFR 567.7, shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the vehicle.

Not sure how this applies, but it's certainly relevant.

From the EPA:

"The production, sale and importation of automotive bodies alone (i.e., no chassis, engine or transmission) are not regulated by EPA since such units are not considered 'motor vehicles' under the Clean Air Act. EPA form 3520-1 is not required for imported automotive bodies. A motor vehicle from which the engine has been removed is still a motor vehicle and is not considered a body."

OK, now we're getting somewhere - But that doesn't satisfy FVMSS, just EPA.

As far as I know, Kaizo is not an RI, which may create some additional headaches.

"If a vehicle is shipped without its engine and drive train, it would be treated, for importation purposes, not as a motor vehicle but instead as an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment items."

Hence, my question as to how a vehicle can get a VIN without a drivetrain.

No more nut-swingers and wannabes need rtespond, unless you have concrete evidence to the contrary.

I'd like to hear from Kaizo. The burden of proof is on Kaizo Industries, and if they can answer these questions, then I'll STFU and applaud their efforts.

[MostH8D]

dont be such a c*** face about this. i never said i was an expert. never claimed it.

i asked questions. like you said, proof is in the pudding. but let me ask you. are you a lawyer? do you specialize in automotive law and importation?

so you quoted a paragraph. what is the legal interpretation of the paragraph? you got one?

im sure dayl and casey have had legal advisement on this. have you? where does your expertise come in? are you an RI? can you comment on this then? how many unibodies have you brought through customs?

unless you can answer any of those question then that is speculation.

an rb26 is just as illegal as an evo with an AEM EM. that has no OBDII.

what you failed to show was that the engine itself was illegal. it does not meet fed standards like many of the engines that have mods dont. many evos retain their stock ecus so they have OBDII but that by no means still means they meet EPA reqt nec. what did your quoted paragraph prove to me. nothing, unless there is a legal inpretation that accurately states the RB26 is illegal.

so ban me or do whatever because obviously in your wisdom im a nut swinger and you have infinite legal knowledge on all matters in quoted paragraphs. good job. instead of doubting kaizo and hoping for them to descend on this forum like the second coming of christ to enlighten you all. why dont you make the effort of talking to them instead of wasting your time quoting paragraphs you dont know the meaning of so you apply your interpretation.

good day.

and by the way look in your own post for this.

...a motor vehicle from which the engine has been removed is still a motor vehicle and is not considered a body....

hence your VIN on the kaizo. you dont even read your own quoted jibberish you claim to understand so well.

[Evo_bill]

Mosth8d, you just don't get it....

Evo with motor modifications automatically fails fed/state laws RB powered car automatically fails fed/state laws Most motor mods automatically fails fed/state laws (common knowledge, hence why aftermarket performance parts have "for off road use only" all over the packaging)

What’s the difference?

Stop trying to push the point that a modded evo and Rb's are legal on public roads neither one is!
Modified by Evo_bill at 9:17 AM 7/24/2008

[Eikon]

I like the fact that he called Greg a "c*** face". That will go over well.

[MostH8D]

what ever...

there are many other skyline forums and appearantly with more info than this where the biggest topic of discussion is speculation of importation laws.

i also like that fact too.

ban me.

should read ....isnt speculation...
Modified by MostH8D at 9:55 PM 7/24/2008

[MostH8D]

bill you dont get it....

your point you were trying to make so emphatically was that rb's make the feds seize your car. my point was that there is no difference between a modded engine and an rb....they are both illegal for the same reason. i was trying to get you to see that by asking you to show where the rb specifically outlawed. thank you for pointing out how i dont get it. you rock. you bell end.

Mosth8d, you just don't get it....

Evo with motor modifications automatically fails fed/state laws RB powered car automatically fails fed/state laws Most motor mods automatically fails fed/state laws (common knowledge, hence why aftermarket performance parts have "for off road use only" all over the packaging)

What’s the difference?

Stop trying to push the point that a modded evo and Rb's are legal on public roads neither one is!

Modified by Evo_bill at 9:17 AM 7/24/2008

[dj_hype]

there are many other skyline forums and appearantly with more info than this where the biggest topic of discussion is speculation of importation laws.

QFT.

[Evo_bill]

QFT.

? Quality **** Tard?

Oh and, mosth8d once again... this isn't worth arguing over...By asking me "to show where the rb specifically outlawed." has really no relevance to the topic. People here are trying to disprove people's claims about a kazio gtr with an RB is legal… which you, yourself pointed out its not. have a nice day

please someone lock this thead.
Modified by Evo_bill at 1:09 PM 7/24/2008

[Vandrel]

This thread took a 180 deg turn

[AZhitman]

...a motor vehicle from which the engine has been removed is still a motor vehicle and is not considered a body....

...and Kaizo says they're importing bodies. Not "motor vehicles".

Trust me, Princess, I comprehend this stuff completely.

Why in the world would I call these guys and ask a bunch of questions, when we're ALL OVER Google when you query their name?

The burden of proof is on them, not me.

You ARE correct on the engine issue as it relates to legality - Hell, out of my 9 vehicles, 2/3 of them are "illegal" under the hood. That doesn't help the RB guys, is all I'm saying.

BTW, you never know when "c***-face" might see you out and about someday and teach you some manners. Be nice.

[SamuraiSam]

I'd like to hear from Kaizo. The burden of proof is on Kaizo Industries, and if they can answer these questions, then I'll STFU and applaud their efforts.

Seeing as how you are demanding an answer from Kaizo, I'll assume that you have contacted Kaizo or Jspec connect, posted on their forums, and/or asked them to come to this forum to answer questions?

If I put together a Cobra kit car in this coming month, with a freshly purchased put together with a polluting-like-crazy, 427cid catless carbureted crate engine, is it illegal since it does not have a OBD-II system on a "2008 model" vehicle? And if so, how are people building, titling, registering, and driving them every single f*cking day??? I think that's a question of equal validity.

[Eikon]

Seeing as how you are demanding an answer from Kaizo, I'll assume that you have contacted Kaizo or Jspec connect, posted on their forums, and/or asked them to come to this forum to answer questions?

If I put together a Cobra kit car in this coming month, with a freshly purchased put together with a polluting-like-crazy, 427cid catless carbureted crate engine, is it illegal since it does not have a OBD-II system on a "2008 model" vehicle? And if so, how are people building, titling, registering, and driving them every single f*cking day??? I think that's a question of equal validity.

My understanding is that most kit cars are OK because they are not based on a vehicle that was mass produced. If they are replica or recreation of vehicles that were mass produced, they have to be vehicles that were legal for the USDM. The Skyline was not legal for the US market, thus any kit car that uses the chassis from that vehicle is not legal.

Am I incorrect in this statement?

[SamuraiSam]

I've never heard of any law that sounded remotely like what you are saying. If you have any references, I'd like to see them.

[bnr32gtr]

so kaizo is considering them as a manufacture with NHTSA?


Modified by bnr32gtr at 6:10 PM 7/24/2008

[Vandrel]

so kaizo is considering them as a manufacture with NHTSA?

they dont come up on herehttp://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/manufacture/

Think it's remanufacture for them and I don't beleive that would show up there

[Evo_bill]

so kaizo is considering them as a manufacture with NHTSA?

they dont come up on herehttp://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/manufacture/

lol sorry... sorry guy... that was too good.

[Marenta]

Hey, just wondering, has anybody looked at the whole Carroll Shelby incident and the Unique Motorcars thing? They were doing the same thing Kaizo is doing. But, I guess they're doing it Motorex style, but way worse, way way way worse.

I am still trying to dig up the technicalities in the CFRs about if a car is still the same manufacture once it has been disassembled, stripped, modified severely (we'll just say that Kaizo actually modifies it enough to make it actually a whole new car, in fact) that it might make it, indeed, a whole new car. I am actually trying to find something somewhere about this, but my endeavors are finding nothing, although I have gotten the info about the Shelby and the Unique Motorcars/Performance people from a KitCar fanclub out of Colorado. Apparently, it just happened this year, too. Perhaps we can find some legal dictates on that? Collective thoughts?

[Edit:

http://findarticles.com/p/arti...98176

http://jalopnik.com/359986/uni...bondo

http://www.mustangblog.com/ind...s-all/

Here are the 3 articles I read about it.. I've been trying to find something on Texas lemon laws, but nothing as of yet.

end]
Modified by Marenta at 8:04 PM 7/24/2008

[SamuraiSam]

I haven't looked at that, any links you can provide so I can read up would be greatly appreciated

[Marenta]

AHA!! I found it!!! I found the ****ING ANSWER!!! All that ****ING searching through CFRs and I found it! Good god!

At least, I think I found it. Perhaps somebody can translate it for me.. it is 11 at night.

49 § CFR 567.5

The preceding statement shall be used only in cases in which the final-stage manufacturer has:

(A) Not affected conformity to standards compliance with which has been fully certified by a chassis-cab manufacturer pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section or by an intermediate manufacturer pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this section, and (B) has completed the vehicle in accordance with the prior manufacturer's instructions in regard to standards listed, as appropriate, in a chassis-cab manufacturer's conditional statement under paragraph (a)(2) of this section or in an intermediate manufacturer's conditional statement under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. The date shown in the third sentence of the statement shall be not earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle, and not later than the date of completion of final-stage manufacture.

(ii) “Conformity of the chassis-cab to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. –––––– has not been affected by final stage manufacture. With respect to Standards Nos. ______, the vehicle has been completed in accordance with the prior manufacturer's instructions. This vehicle conforms to all other applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect in (month, year).”

The first sentence of the preceding statement shall be completed by inserting the numbers of all or less than all of the standards, and only those standards, respecting which the latest prior certification statement was made by a chassis-cab manufacturer pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section or by an intermediate manufacturer pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this section. The second sentence of the statement shall be completed by inserting the numbers of all or less than all of the standards and only those standards, respecting which the latest prior certification statement was a chassis-cab manufacturer's conditional statement under paragraph (a)(2) of this section or an intermediate manufacturer's conditional statement under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. The date shown in the third sentence of the statement shall be not earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle, and not later than the date of completion of final-stage manufacture.

(iii) “This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect in (month, year).”

The date shown shall be not earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle and not later than the date of completion of final-stage manufacture.

(8) Vehicle identification number.

(9) The type classification of the vehicle as defined in §571.3 of Title 49 of the CFR (e.g., truck, MPV, bus, trailer).

(d) More than one set of figures for GVWR and GAWR, and one or more tire sizes, may be listed in satisfaction of the requirements of paragraphs (c) (5) and (6) of this section, as provided in §567.4(h).

(e) If an incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by the Act, with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer shall ensure that a label is affixed to the final vehicle in conformity with paragraph (c) of this section, except that the name of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer shall appear instead of the name of the final-stage manufacturer after the words “MANUFACTURED BY” or “MFD BY” required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the additional manufacturer's name required by paragraph (c)(3) of this section shall be omitted, and the date required by paragraph (c)(4) of this section shall be preceded by the words “INCOMPLETE VEHICLE MANUFACTURED” or “INC VEH MFD.”

(f) If an intermediate manufacturer of a vehicle assumes legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers by the Act, with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured, the intermediate manufacturer shall ensure that a label is affixed to the final vehicle in conformity with paragraph (c) of this section, except that the name of the intermediate manufacturer shall appear instead of the name of the final-stage manufacturer after the words “MANUFACTURED BY” or “MFD BY” required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

All this says to me is that Nissan can legally come by and claim the vehicle, I think, right? Or, am I just tired?

[SamuraiSam]

CFR 567.5 deals with vehicles that are manufactured in two stages, hence the term "chassis-cab" being used frequently. http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/t....html It has absolutely no bearing on car importation or FMVSS conformity issues, sorry.

This is a vehicle that is say, "1/2" built" by the original [Partial Vehicle] manufacturer for use as a tow truck or dump truck, RV et cetera and then is sold to a secondary "completion" [final-stage / intermediate] manufacturer before being sold to an end-user.
Modified by SamuraiSam at 11:00 PM 11/19/2008

[MostH8D]

wow. you are such a tuff guy. since you know who i am and all when you run into me im sure you will recognize me. and teach me manners.

once again, nice interpretation of that law. where did you get your law degree again? still no answer. what is your degree in? be honest.

what is it you do for a living? 41k posts?? hmmm....

...and Kaizo says they're importing bodies. Not "motor vehicles".

Trust me, Princess, I comprehend this stuff completely.

Why in the world would I call these guys and ask a bunch of questions, when we're ALL OVER Google when you query their name?

The burden of proof is on them, not me.

You ARE correct on the engine issue as it relates to legality - Hell, out of my 9 vehicles, 2/3 of them are "illegal" under the hood. That doesn't help the RB guys, is all I'm saying.

BTW, you never know when "c***-face" might see you out and about someday and teach you some manners. Be nice.