1990 in general is a very rare year for third gens as well as 1992....

BUt not 91......

nope, they made tons in 91 lol. the model year started early cuz the 90's were cut short due to the contract with IROC expiring on december 31st 1989, also 91 brought about the new body pieces

This may be splitting hairs, but that's what lawyers do, so here goes...

I'd venture that ANY vehicle that is not in the current year of production is a "limited production vehicle." Look at it this way, there will NEVER be another 1983 V6 Berlinetta produced by Chevrolet. Every one of these cars is rare in the sense that the number of original cars will do nothing but decline. Each of these prized and endangered vehicles that remains on the road must be preserved because if it is not, then the vehicles will become extinct.

It doesn't matter that in 1983 you could've ordered 100,000 v6 Berlinettas and Chevrolet would have ponied up and made the factory put them out. Now, in 2007, you couldn't get a brand new 1983 Berlinetta if you were willing to pay $10 Million. The number of original cars produced is "limited" by the fact that it is of a 1983 vintage, on the road in 2007.

Until I see a statutory definition of "limited production vehicle," I'm sticking to this story.

got a letter back saying my application was denied!! i need proof of limited manufacture or remaining limited quantity

Good luck with that. This letter deal is basically making approvals subjective. They are trying to kill off the exploitation of the collector car reg, I'm sure.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e3...P/lastscan.jpg

So now what do I do? I'm on the phone with my insurance company right now to take care of the limited use issue. But now I'm hung up with this limited manufacture thing, Required photos? & SS-66 R5/06 form?

And the state wonders why they have to crack down on illegally obtained stickers.

You MIGHT be able to contact GM VVS in Ontario (I think the guy's name is George) and obtain production numbers for cars like yours since some 3rd and all 4th gens were built at St. Therese.

alex, i got the same thing

Yeah saw it after I posted :lol:

I called my insurance and they just have the Camaro listed as a "pleasure car - driven no more then 2 miles a day" they don't list it as a limited use. So its either I buy a sticker, or have my parents sign up for a collectors car insurance company and add me as a driver which would void my independence from them.

Pretty sure that no 3rd gens were built there....I think they were all Van Nuys, CA or Norwood, OH.

- Justin

I believe they require a letter from a "collector car organization" attesting to the collectability and limited remaining quantity of these cars.

A simple affidavit from your local F body club should do, which says something like "the Camaro has been produced since 1967 and has long been regarded as one of the most desirable vehicles to collectors. The desirability of the Camaro has caused the price of even the most base-model Camaros of the first generation (1967-69) and second generation (1970-1981) to climb dramatically, making many of the earlier models far too expensive for the modest collector. Consequently, later-model Camaros have also seen a marked increase in value among collectors. Models years such as the third generation (1982-1992) Camaro have become recently recognized among Camaro enthusiasts as legitimately collectable. Since these vehicles are desirable for racing purposes, the number of unmodified cars (even base models) has rapidly declined..... Blah Blah Blah." I'll even write it for you if you want.

If you can find an administrator or officer of your local F-body club that would be willing to sign an affidavit, you would probably be okay. Any volunteers?

More info from NJ Administrative Code Title 13:20-43.1:

""Collector motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle, not otherwise qualified for designation as an "historic vehicle," or "street rod," which was either: originally manufactured as a restricted issue make or model, or in a sufficiently limited quantity; or at the time of qualification for designation exists in such limited numbers; either one or the other or both of the above, according to any generally recognized compilation of motor vehicle statistical information on file with, or supplied by the owner to the Motor Vehicle Commission, as may be accepted by the Chief Administrator in his or her discretion, so as to establish it as a unique commodity having a current monetary value in excess of similar make and model vehicles with routine manufacture and distribution patterns, and, further, that is not driven in excess of the maximum mileage permitted by the terms of a valid limited use motor vehicle insurance policy issued for, and covering such vehicle, proof of which shall be supplied to the Motor Vehicle Commission at the time of application for designation as a collector vehicle, which mileage shall in no event exceed 3,000 miles per year. This term shall not include motor vehicles with elevated chassis height which are subject to inspection in accordance with N.J.A.C. 13:20-37."

This may cause a problem, but I really think the letter will work because it says "similar make and model", but not year. Also, the application materials say that you can submit evidence that "a limited quantity of the original production run remains."

wow that's crap, I hope that this doesn't effect me next month when I have to renew. Also, knowing someone who works at DMV helps :-D

Here's more; NJ ADC 13:20-43.2:

"(c) To qualify for designation as a "collector motor vehicle" the owner or lessee of a motor vehicle shall submit an application in the form specified by the Motor Vehicle Commission which provides evidence of the following:

1. The vehicle is not currently qualified for designation as an "historic motor vehicle," as provided at N.J.S.A. 39:3-27.3 et seq., and any rules promulgated pursuant thereto, or as a "street rod," as provided at N.J.S.A. 39:3-27.27, and any rules promulgated pursuant thereto;

2. The vehicle is not a motor vehicle with elevated chassis height which is subject to inspection in accordance with N.J.A.C. 13:20-37;

3. The vehicle is not driven in excess of the maximum mileage permitted by the terms of a valid limited use motor vehicle insurance policy issued for such vehicle; and

4. The vehicle currently qualifies for, and is covered by, motor vehicle insurance coverage of a kind intended for limited use collector motor vehicles, proof of which shall be supplied to the Motor Vehicle Commission at the time of application for designation as a collector motor vehicle, which policy shall limit the mileage of the vehicle to 3,000 miles per year or less; and either,

i. Proof that the vehicle was originally manufactured as a restricted issue make or model, or in a sufficiently limited quantity, according to any generally recognized compilation of motor vehicle statistical information on file with, or supplied by the owner or lessee to the Motor Vehicle Commission, as may be accepted by the Chief Administrator in his or her discretion, so as to establish the vehicle as a unique commodity having a current monetary value in excess of similar make and model vehicles with routine manufacture and distribution patterns; or

ii. Proof that at the time of qualification for designation as a "collector motor vehicle" that the make and model of such vehicles exist in such limited numbers, according to any generally recognized compilation of motor vehicle statistical information on file with, or supplied by the owner or lessee to the Motor Vehicle Commission, as may be accepted by the Chief Administrator in his or her discretion, so as to establish the vehicle as a unique commodity having a current monetary value in excess of similar make and model vehicles with routine manufacture and distribution patterns."

I wonder if this is a "generally recognized compilation of statistical information"?

http://www.camaro-registry.com/production.htm

... perhaps if it was recognized in writing by a certain F-Body club?

Actually, I think these are more accurate.

http://www.yearone.com/updatedsingle...roprodnums.asp

http://www.fbodymotorsports.com/8292...uction_numbers

DMV sucks moose balls

Ted, I just renewed mine a couple weeks ago and got a new sticker. I think if you're already in the system you're fine. This may just be for people who are registering for the first time, as I didn't read anything in the posts or on the MVC site about showing all this proof when renewing.

i have sent a few emails and i am waiting for replies about what this "official letter" has to entail to be qualified. the information was also forwarded to the SEMA Action Network so that they coudl look into it for us.
i will keep everyone posted.

Cool, facts make this thread good. A little devil's advocate here...I'm guessing they are tightening up lax enforcement. By what I read here it has been abused.

Really, how many of our cars meet these stipulations?

Can you get collectors insurance on a 99 Z28, or a 91 Camaro RS (just to pick some random late models)? Maybe at best. I actually tried on the 99 just for S&Gs, and Hagerty told me no. And many 3rd gens may or may not be in their radars yet. Maybe through 85 or so. Hell, I do not even have a mileage limit w/Hagerty, but they might add one if I ask. It's just a policy endorsement. And I am ignoring the age & driving record factors these companies look at. But let's assume we can get the required coverage from some company with policy language that will make DMV happy...

I do not think "They are not made anymore" <> "originally manufactured as a restricted issue make or model, or in a sufficiently limited quantity, according to any generally recognized compilation". And a 99 Z28 or a 91 Camaro RS are not "originally manufactured as a restricted issue". A Z06 might qualify. A 3rd gen 1LE car probably qualifies. Now, if I can get data down to the only 99 Z28 in this color/options package, maybe. But even that might be a stretch. And I got $2 that says a note from NJFBOA carries no weight at all. Imagine if they checked the site? :lol:

What's your thoughts mtnhopper1? What does "..., or in a sufficiently limited quantity,..." mean legally? Grammatically, I read that as "originally manufactured...in a sufficiently limited quantity". Meaning now does not matter, time of manufacture does.

And they are taking "current monetary value in excess of similar make and model" into their (subjective) decision? Collctor <> valuble. That just makes no sense to me. But this is NJ state law....

Not to be a D*** but if you go by numbers posted in the few links here your 77 had more in production numbers than my 91 did. And if you go back to the beginning this is for cars that "DO NOT QUALIFY FOR ANTIQUE". So in all honesty the whole process is bogus. The law is in an extremely grey area here. I think it will be interesting to see what Tim hears from the SEMA action network. Honestly who can say a car is more "collectable" than another car? Like I said in the beginning all cars are "limited" to the amount people will buy.
If other people that own f-body's have this registration then ALL F-body owners should be allowed to get this. It really should not matter what type of car it is but limited to the yearly mileage. It is my opinion this was instituted in the first place, so high pollution vehicles can still be used but cut down on the amount.
Maybe we can get something done about this, just like the whole issue with the subjective inspections at stations

Exactly. The first two generations had significantly more production then the last two. I think that's why they say "current remaining number" so you can kind of qualify by that.

Tomorrow I am getting on the horn with Hagerty & switching the Camaro over to them under my moms policy (Since I'm not 25) and I'll see how much further I can get with this.

I'm going to get that sticker through hell or high water without a dollar spent!

When read with the other available designations, I think it must mean cars made within the past 25 years. There already is a "historical vehicle" designation for older vehicles. It is a common statutory argument to say that where another statute directly addresses a particular issue (i.e. the "historical vehicle" statute), another ambiguous and seemingly duplicitive statute (the "collector" statute) must mean something else. The "collector vehicle" statute can't mean vehicles over 25 yrs old becasue those are already covered in the "historical" statute. If "collector" was intended to cover only older vehicles, why would anyone go through the trouble of having their 25+ year old car designated "collector" when they can get historical plates and be done with it without providing the additional proofs? Right? The "collector" designation would be useless, and legislators would NEVER waste time writing a useless law (Ugh! And ppl say lawyers lie!). The only other difference is the "display or educational demonstration" limitation on historical vehicles, but I think that is vague enough to cover whatever we do with our cars. Somerville on Fridays is unquestionably a "display" purpose.

As for the legal definition of "sufficiently limited quantity," that is one of those mushy phrases that get stuck into statutes that means the legislators who wrote the statute really meant to say: "we're going to leave it up to the administrators/courts to decide." "Sufficiently" isn't defined. What is "sufficient" depends on the person reviewing the file. The "proofs" provided need to explain the reason that late model cars can be collectable becasue the person reviewing the file probably doesn't care enough about it to think about it on their own. By writing the letter, we tell them what to think about it.

I really don't think the DMV is going to go much beyond was is sent to them to make the determination. It is unlikely that some DMV employee is going to do outside research to determine the legitimacy of a car club letter sent on club letterhead. Besides, they specifically ASK for a letter from a car club. NJFBOA is as legitimate a club as any to which I have belonged over the years. It has a community of enthusiasts, hundreds of members, a newsletter, regular meets, special events, etc, etc. Why would our club be any less legitimate than DuBz EaStSiDe LOW Boyzzzzz, or whatever? I can easily imagine some tool writing the same letter to argue that a 94 Caprice is collectable. Would that constitute "sufficiently limited quantities"? I think it might, for the same reason I think a 91 RS camaro qualifies... because people collect them, because enthusiasts buy them for the fact that they are Caprices (or because they can't afford Impalas). If Alex, or any of us wanted a regular daily driver, we would've each bought a new Yaris. In fact, there may even be Yaris enthusiasts out there for all I know. My apologies to the NJ Yaris owners association.

In any event, I would argue that the purpose of the statute was to allow enthusiasts who own vehicles that they consider collectable to own and operate those vehicles on a limited basis without having to meet the criteria required for daily drivers. Here's the trade off: the owner doesn't have to get the car inspected, but he can't use it as a daily driver. The proofs are required to show that driver's reason for owning the car is legitimately for its collectable value and not as its daily driver. The car club letter lends some legitimacy to the driver's claim that the car actually HAS collectable value because collectable value is show by the fact that people collect them. We collect them - they're collectable.

My GOD this post is long! I bet that's the last time you ask for my thoughts!