Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBillyT
That's kinda what I was thinking. They don't give a rat's *** about rare options like a Z54 deluxe interior and underhood sound deadening. It's a 77 Camaro to them. They aren't going to care about many options or midyear changes. If they did I could register my GTP as collector since it's a '97 GTP with no traction control, a hood prop rod and a post antenna.
|
I think they might care about options if you could convincingly say that the options make the car worth preserving. Correct me if I'm wrong, but i think the IROC package was an option in 1987 (as opposed to a separate model). I think it would be pretty easy to back up the assertion that an IROC is collectable. Has anyone gotten "collector" registration in a third-gen Z or Iroc?
The point I'm trying to make is that particular models are collectable merely because they are that certain model which is no longer produced, regardless of which options they had. Such a car would have a "monetary value in excess of similar make and model vehicles with routine manufacture and distribution patterns" because it is of a body style that is no longer produced.
I'm really not sure if the NJ DMV would buy this argument, but I think it is pretty much the only one that you can make. I'm pretty sure that the intention of the statute is to prevent people from registering plane jane camaros that are less than 25 years old as collectable. It seems to me that the NJ legislature has decided that so-called "vehicles with routine manufacture and distribution patterns" (like my 1967 327/powerglide camaro) are not collectable until they are at least 25 years old, when they become "historical."
Just because this seems to be the case doesn't mean we can't try to find a loophole. The statute is poorly drafted. I think there is enough "wiggle room" in the language to register a 1991 Camaro RS as a collector vehicle. I think this is especially true because the people who are determining whether the proofs are sufficient are not lawyers, and probably have never read the statute. They are looking to see whether the vehicle
seems collectable. If we write them a convincing letter, and attach loads of statistical charts, blah, blah, as exhibits, we might be able to convince them that a 1991 RS deserves the same treatment as a 1991 1LE (or even a Z28, for that matter).
Regardless of what the statute was intended to do, I think it can be done. In all honesty, these cars ARE collectable, and if the statute wasn't intended to allow plain jane camaros to be afforded collector status, than the statute is wrong. The legislators should've drafted a tighter statute.