Superlite GTA

[Sam H.]

I was re-reading your review and comments and it made me go look at the 818 again. No change in opinion, I don't like it. But, what that led me to was looking at GTM photos and I realized something I REALLY do not like about the GTM goes along with the theme in your review of the 818 being unfinished. The aspect on the GTM I can't stand is the back corners of the hood where they end just in front of the side mirrors. They are just these points sticking out into space like the designer was going somewhere with the hood and just stopped. I'd imagine they vibrate around a bit while driving too.

Anyway, enough hijack, anything new on the APEX????????

I agree. Not a big fan of the 818 or the GTM. I can't quite put my finger on what it is I don't like about their designs, but they just don't seem "polished" to me somehow.

Particularly the GTM seems to have that long, flowing, almost sloppy look to it. Both the GTM and 818 seem as though they cut and pasted some "cool" design cues from numerous other cars onto one car. In contrast, I feel like the SLC and GTA look tight and relatively compact and all the design cues fit together.

 

[Tom]

I saw a mildly customized Subie BRZ on the weekend and while it was cool looking, it made me think how much cooler it would be to have an Apex (not to mention better performing!).

Being as 2013 is just under a month away, anything new?

 

[Richard]

I just pulled the engine out of my 97 Eagle Talon Tsi to do a rebuild. No small task by the way. You need really tiny hands which isn't me. I can see now how the entire structural front of the car will just unbolt which makes your project much more feasible.

One of the more interesting aspects of this car and was one of the most important reason I bought it was the facet that it has all wheel drive (I live in snow country, northern Idaho).

Fran I know you're building all new front suspension so is there any way to retain the all wheel drive? With the way the transfer case is built it doesn't look that it would be that hard to get a drive shaft going forward the question is is there a way to move the rear diff up front. Sorry if this has already covered. I will also greatly miss my moon roof. Please no hate mail it really is a nice feature.

 

[Leon R]

At this year's DSM Shootout there was a gentleman who built a custom, mid engine (4G63) car with AWD. He did so by flipping the transfer case forward and then using DSM rear end in the front of the car (upside down). I spent about 30 min going over that car! Outstanding piece of fabrication and engineering! So it can be done, but IMO, not worth the incredible effort!

 

[Jeff]

That is pretty much the story on AWD. A select few really love it. Enjoy the way they pull, handle, etc. (I am one of you). The rest of the world sees it as unnecessary and complicated. They enjoy rear drive and all the fun it holds when driven correctly.

It has been asked about. Fran has stated pretty clearly he has no interest in it but anything is possible for you to do to your own project. (I think Fran secretly wants AWD but is embarrased to admit it )


Jeff-

 

[Mark R]

I will be following this thread with great interest! I would love to be working on a GT40 or SLC, but I just cant justify the capital investment right now for another toy that is not practical for daily duty.

I have been pondering some sort of low-buck mid engine project that could be built up from mostely all cheap doner parts, using a FWD 4cyl and a 5spd transaxle as a basis.

Ultimately, I would probably spend more trying to build my own frame/body than what RCR will ask for this 'kit'. I love building stuff and someday really want to create my own cocept car. This GTA is just so close its not even funny.

I do really like the idea of keeping the stock cabin intact. I cant wait to see how it comes together.

 

[Tom]

Over the weekend I started looking into legality, specifically making the car California street legal. I don't want to have something that may pass smog tests or may need alterations every other year in order to pass. I also don't want it to attract attention from the CHP if it is borderline in terms of noise. I want it to be as legal as something I could buy off a lot.

The information I was able to dig up seems to point to the modifications needed to make the kind of power that's been talked about in this thread are not Ca. street legal. 4G63 mod shops seem to have a disclaimer on their sites saying this too - only legal in Ca for vehicles that will not be used on public roads. Different turbos are one of the things listed as not legal.

Maybe there's more to it and I just haven't found the right information yet on how it can be done to get these engines to perform and have no legality issues in Ca.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Maybe there's more to it and I just haven't found the right information yet on how it can be done to get these engines to perform and have no legality issues in Ca.

I believe there are two distinct approaches to this:

1. Present it to the DMV as a Mitsubishi (or whatever it is) of whatever model year. It will then be subject to whatever smog checks (biennial in most the more urban counties) the donor car would have been. It will be subject to a visual inspection of the smog-related equipment so that all has to "look right" to the technician (even though it's now at the other end of the car.
2. Present it as a specially constructed (SPCN) vehicle. Within this there are two ways to go:
   1. "SB-100" where you acquire one of the 500 sequence numbers handed out each year for cars that are then allowed to be smog-regulated according to the appearance of the car. In this case it resembles nothing, and is then treated as a 1960 car for smog purposes, which means you are exempt from any inspections forever.
   2. "Non-SB100" where it is regulated according to the year you register the car. Assuming you do this "next" year (2013) This I believe would be impossible with even a brand new stone-stock engine, unless the car already to pass model year 2013 smog tests for some reason. Maybe it does.

If you really want any latitude with the engine I think you're going to have to go the SB100 route. I also suspect that to be in strict compliance with the law you would be required to use SPCN since the car will no longer resemble the donor. But in practice that might depend on whether anyone who understands all this actually sees it. I think when you transfer ownership in CA there is a mandatory VIN check by a DMV employee, so if you want to "play dumb" then register the unmodified donor in your name before you build the kit. Then the only risk is whether the smog shop objects at your next biennial inspection, and I have no idea what his/her reaction might be.

For more on SPCN see Home Made Specially Constructed or Kit Vehicles

 

[Tom]

That's I think the crux of it for me. I was thinking it would be easier to register as an Eclipse in my name, then do the work to it, but that leaves it having to comply with 95-99 smog rules, which mostly rules out the fun stuff in the engine bay. And who knows when I take it to get checked if someone's going to say, "Hey, that's not an Eclipse!" and trouble starts from there.

SB100 is cleaner once complete, but would mean it couldn't be registered until 2014 since the numbers are given out on the first day of the year, and 1/2/2013 will be long before I'm very far down the path on any project.

Maybe that's good in a way as I then have a year or so to figure out what I'm doing.

 

[Schills]

SB100 is cleaner once complete, but would mean it couldn't be registered until 2014 since the numbers are given out on the first day of the year, and 1/2/2013 will be long before I'm very far down the path on any project.

While it may have been true when the SB100 option first rolled out, the numbers disappearing on the first day is now merely urban legend. However, there is nothing that prevents you from getting the number before your car is finished. . .or started.

 

[Tom]

That's good to know, thanks! Can I just check with the DMV on whatever date to see if they still have numbers available?

As I understand it, I have to have some things such as a bill of sale that mean I've at least started the project.

Lastly, I wonder how SB100 works with regard to something like this where the donor car already has a VIN and I'm keeping the part of the car that has the plate affixed to it.

(Going to read up on SB100 this week.)

 

[Schills]

It would be interesting if you called DMV today to see if they have any left for 2012. I'd bet that they do. But be warned, its not something they deal with very often so you may have trouble finding someone who understands what you're asking.

 

[Brad R.]

I want it to be as legal as something I could buy off a lot.

That thought alone should be carefully examined. No matter how hard you try, at the end of your day the ride is in a kit car. Factory OEM serviceability will not be available... part of the reason you will see far more GT2 P-cars than caterham 7 or cobra 427. Expecting a car like the GTA to be equatable with something off the lot is a bit of a stretch. C'mon... if a person hits your rear end and runs it's not like you can just "take it to the shop" and drive a courtesy SL-C will you wait :laugh:

 

[Tom]

All I said was as legal as something off the lot.

I fully understand I'm the one who will be fixing whatever comes up and that it will never be just like something I hand my cash over and receive fully built by a factory. I just don't want to have to add/subtract modifications each time I go to register it and don't want to be nervous anytime I pass a CHP (and am otherwise within the law). I do want to be able to modify the engine and still be legal.

It sounds like the SPCNS route would achieve that as it could be considered a 1960 vehicle, assuming someone doesn't go by the engine being from the 90's. What I still need to figure out is how SPCNS works if you are using the cabin that has the VIN plate. Do I have the Eclipse titled as junk and then that plate gets removed? Going to research that.

 

[Jim]

Any updated pictures for us Fran? My heart is set on an SL-C but this project continues to intrigue me:laugh:

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Tom --
I got my sequence number on dec. 7 of 2010. They will ask you if it's "done" but don't verify that. Careful with calling about number availability. I was told in march 2010 they were all gone and only when I went in in prep. to get a 2011 number found out that was wrong. I just had my BAR inspection last week. I think this case most resembles the salvage resurrection case but think you won't know for sure until you try.

Btw two dmvs that defiinitely "get it" San Clemente and redwood city. One that did not at all in late 2010: normal heights in San Diego. Suggest you ask your local cobra club or on clubcobra.com.

They do not go by engine year if you don't want to; that's the whole principal behind SB100.

You have to have receipts for chassis engine and transaxle and state total cost. If you don't declare the kit cost you'll be underpaying your use tax and in principle could be caught. So if I were you I would wait until I had Fran's receipt just to be squeaky clean.

 

[Tom]

Thanks Alan. Home from work today, so it gives me a little chance to learn a thing or two about this.

I did find a forum posting about a guy who got his cert Aug '12 and there were about 100 left at that time. It sounds like they haven't all gone for the past few years.

Is yours going under the 1960 smog rules? I'm trying to figure out how the BAR ref looks in an engine bay and sees a fairly modern powerplant and doesn't call it a certain year. It would suck to show up planning on the 1960 designation and having left all of the smog stuff off, then get tagged as 1992 or something.

Interesting on the Statement of Construction it asks about where the body and frame came from. In the case of the Apex, both of those will be from 2 sources - RCR and the Donor car. Maybe better to list RCR for both? Or will the donor VIN raise flags?

 

[Roger]

Is yours going under the 1960 smog rules? I'm trying to figure out how the BAR ref looks in an engine bay and sees a fairly modern powerplant and doesn't call it a certain year.

I've not used SB100 (yet), but from what I've read, I think you're OK. It's your choice if it's done by engine or "vehicle" (body style) year:

If the engine or the vehicle does not sufficiently resemble one previously manufactured, the referee will assign 1960 as the model-year.

An SPCNS Certificate of Sequence identifies a vehicle as one for which the owner may choose emission control inspection based on the model-year of the engine used in the vehicle or the vehicle model-year

Interesting on the Statement of Construction it asks about where the body and frame came from. In the case of the Apex, both of those will be from 2 sources - RCR and the Donor car. Maybe better to list RCR for both? Or will the donor VIN raise flags?

If it's dismantled, you should be OK. I don't know if you'd quote the original VIN though, although I suspect it could be useful to prove that you own it:

A "home-made, specially constructed, or kit vehicle" is a vehicle that is built for private use, not for resale, and is not constructed by a licensed manufacturer or remanufacturer. These vehicles may be built from a kit, new or used parts, a combination of new and used parts, or a vehicle reported for dismantling (junked) that, when reconstructed, does not resemble the original make of the vehicle that was dismantled.

A specially constructed vehicle (SPCNS) does not include a vehicle that has been repaired or restored to its original design by replacing parts or a vehicle modified from its original design.

Example: A Volkswagen "Beetle" with modified fenders, engine compartment lid, and front end, but still recognizable as a Volkswagen is not considered a specially constructed vehicle.

 

[Tom]

If it's dismantled, you should be OK. I don't know if you'd quote the original VIN though, although I suspect it could be useful to prove that you own it:

I was more pointing to the existing VIN plaque being on the dash and how that's dealt with or if it causes anyone to question what year/car it really is.

Edit - oh, and I was confused by the part about "if the engine or vehicle does not resemble one previously manufactured". So this car will have an engine in it that says Mitsubishi 2.0L DOHC on top, is the ref likely to let that go in light of how modified the rest of the motor is?

 

[Roger]

I was more pointing to the existing VIN plaque being on the dash and how that's dealt with or if it causes anyone to question what year/car it really is.

I think you'll be OK - it won't resemble the donor, so can be registered under SB100 IMO.