Considering collector plates?

[Bruce]

I found this list of approved mods you are allowed to make to your car and still qualify for collector plates.

http://www.sva.bc.ca/QandA/Approved2.pdf

It looks like if you had a 67, you could put fake BRMs on it and still qualify.

This page was found here:

http://www.sva.bc.ca/

[silas]

good find bruce!!

i had no idea the svabc even existed.

[Rob DVKK]

Come on everyone knows about the svabc  - it's just been on the qt 

Looks like the rules are loosening. If this was 2007. Too bad about the suspension height though. Does lowering count if the car is just sagged out?

[Lanny]

When I worked at RX, Nigel was a regular visitor. He told me any post 58 Modified Collector plans won't happen anytime soon. Still too many 58-67 cars being used as normal transportation in BC. Re mods, if you pass the initial, then do more mods later on, you might as well not have any insurance at all. Its still kind of cool to think a 'Pre Cal Look' stock height car could pass.

[OUTKAST]

Great info Thanks Bruce

[Bruce]

Too bad about the suspension height though. Does lowering count if the car is just sagged out?

You can fully comply with the rule and have a lower front.  Just toss a couple of hundred lbs in where the spare tire goes.


The thing I don't get is the unequal application of the rules.  A couple of years ago I saw a 356C rolling on Fuchs.  Fuchs never came on a 356, they didn't appear until 2 years after the last 356 was made.  Not stock, and not era correct by any stretch of the imagination.  AFAIC, if he can get away with Fuchs, I should be able to get collector plates for my 75 Beetle wearing 1975 911 Turbo Fuchs.

[Batan]

Too bad about the suspension height though. Does lowering count if the car is just sagged out?

You can fully comply with the rule and have a lower front.  Just toss a couple of hundred lbs in where the spare tire goes.


The thing I don't get is the unequal application of the rules.  A couple of years ago I saw a 356C rolling on Fuchs.  Fuchs never came on a 356, they didn't appear until 2 years after the last 356 was made.  Not stock, and not era correct by any stretch of the imagination.  AFAIC, if he can get away with Fuchs, I should be able to get collector plates for my 75 Beetle wearing 1975 911 Turbo Fuchs.

Maybe he's risking it and he threw them on after he got the plates?

[Bruce]

Could be.  If so, he's got some big cajones.  I saw the car at a show where Nigel was walking around.  If you're not paying attention, Nigel is the guy who wrote that pdf in my link above.

[Batan]

Could be.  If so, he's got some big cajones.  I saw the car at a show where Nigel was walking around.  If you're not paying attention, Nigel is the guy who wrote that pdf in my link above.

What is he actually risking with it? I have a Collector plates motorcycle. It's stock. But I put on a small plexi windscreen(one of those that comes off in 30 seconds) to go for a ride when it's cold.

[silas]

The thing I don't get is the unequal application of the rules.  A couple of years ago I saw a 356C rolling on Fuchs.  Fuchs never came on a 356, they didn't appear until 2 years after the last 356 was made.  Not stock, and not era correct by any stretch of the imagination.  AFAIC, if he can get away with Fuchs, I should be able to get collector plates for my 75 Beetle wearing 1975 911 Turbo Fuchs.

imo, "era correct" could be defined a bunch of different ways. an era is a span of time...who really decides when it starts & ends. in 1967, a 3 year old 1964 porsche 356 could have been rolling on some 67 fuchs. so should the 60's not be considered an era? who defines "era correct" at the svabc?

[Bruce]

What is he actually risking with it?

If he crashes the car, or it is stolen, and ICBC finds out, they tell him to F-off, insurance is in invalid.
 
A few years ago there was a precident setting case where a guy with a 60s Buick had his claim denied after he wrecked the car.  The courts upheld ICBC's decision.  In this case, the car didn't have incorrect parts on it, instead it had 3 problems.  First, it was a POS with rust, dents and missing interior parts.  Two, he didn't also have a daily driver in his name.  Third, he rented it out to a movie crew.
Any one of these infractions is enough to get your insurance revoked.  Having incorrect parts is enough too.  Many guys have received letters from ICBC informing them to put the stock parts back on and that the insurance is invalid until then.

With your motorcycle shield, you could make the argument that it is a safety item.  Best to get that hashed out ahead of time.

[Bruce]

imo, "era correct" could be defined a bunch of different ways. an era is a span of time...who really decides when it starts & ends. in 1967, a 3 year old 1964 porsche 356 could have been rolling on some 67 fuchs. so should the 60's not be considered an era? who defines "era correct" at the svabc?

In 65, it was the end of an era when the last 356 was built.  At the same time, a new era started with the 911/912.  When you look at it this way, it is clear.  Go over to the P forums.  Tech questions on 356s are always separated in different forums from 911/912 postings.  I equate this difference to the difference between a Beetle and a Rabbit.  Even though the two cars were made at the same time and overlapped.  The beetle's era is different from the Rabbit/Golf's era.  Of course nobody would want to put Rabbit parts on a Beetle, so this is moot.

Who defines "era correct" you say?  It is Nigel Matthews at ICBC.  Have another look at the pdf link above.  Nothing to do with svabc, they just host the link.

[silas]

In 65, it was the end of an era when the last 356 was built.  At the same time, a new era started with the 911/912.  When you look at it this way, it is clear.  Go over to the P forums.  Tech questions on 356s are always separated in different forums from 911/912 postings.  I equate this difference to the difference between a Beetle and a Rabbit.  Even though the two cars were made at the same time and overlapped.  The beetle's era is different from the Rabbit/Golf's era.  Of course nobody would want to put Rabbit parts on a Beetle, so this is moot.

i can understand that logic and it makes sense. you could say the same about thesamba.com forums and the way they're divided (splits, ovals, 58+, etc).

Who defines "era correct" you say?  It is Nigel Matthews at ICBC.  Have another look at the pdf link above.  Nothing to do with svabc...

ya, i realized that after i made the post and didnt feel like going to edit it. so if it's up to nigel to decide why dont you go to him with your 75 bug on 75 fuchs? and just for the sake of discussion...what would be said about a 59 bug with brms. after referencing the cal-look bible it looks like brms werent made for acvws until the mid 60's. would that be considered "era correct"?

[Bruce]

There are many other things that disqualify my car, like rear discs, and the ICE.  Plus, you need to have another car as a daily driver in order to get collector tags, that is my 75.
From what I have seen, the collector cops at ICBC aren't too knowledgeable about VWs.  You could probably get a 59 through with fake BRMs.  Certainly, a 67 with BRMs qualifies.

One friend of mine has a 65, and when she applied for collector tags, her wheels were painted all flat black.  As we all know, they should be two tone, black and white.  She got the status with ease.  However, the colours were off, and we didn't want to push our luck, so we got the wheels painted very soon after.  Now they can't touch her.