I think I've read that 95 and before are, and 96 and after are illegal (to be driven and such)
Whats Ameritech, and what all do they do to legalize them for driving.

Any other interesting things about having them legal in the US?

anyone?

Well, to be legal, they have to conform to Federal safety and emissions laws. McLarens were never designed to be in compliance with these. However, they do meet or exceed several of the standards.

Anyone importing these cars has to make the case that the cars do conform to the standards in effect at the time of manufacture, and if they don't conform in some areas, then they have to be modified and brought in compliance.

Amerispec brought the cars in and made the case that they were brought in as incomplete. Then they said that they completed the assembly of the cars, making them subject to kit car or home-assembled car standards (which are less stringent). Amerispec is registered as a manufacturer and is assigned its own series of VIN numbers, so these cars have an AmeriSpec VIN number as well as a McLaren one. In addition, enough modifications were done to the exhaust to enable the cars to pass EPA regulations, although not all states test for these, so different cars had different amounts of work done, if any. A lot of these "certifications" are paperwork only eg. certification that the lights conform to DOT spec. so and so.

Some modifications that did alter the car significantly were done in a manner so that they could be undone easily. For instance, mini bumpers were added, but these could be removed within 10 minutes. One of the passenger seats was also removed, but it was a simple matter of replacing and securing the seat cushions to bring the McLaren back to its original configuration. So, with these "modifications" AmeriSpec sold these cars as "kit cars" built by AmeriSpec. Of course, most of the buyers immediately reverted the cars back to their original factory configuration. Some did keep the modified exhaust systems, though.

Eventually, NHTSA recognized that some cars are truly special and it is impossible to convert them to Federal Safety Standards without altering the car completely or incurring huge expenses. And that they were being brought into the country under a variety of guises and existing here under dubious pretenses. So, to regulate this grey area, they created a Show and Display category. You have to petition NHTSA to get a special car approved under this category, and once you are given this approval, you don't have to modify the car to meet Federal Safety Standards. You do have to still meet EPA standards, though. And you are only allowed to drive a maximum of 2,500 miles per year under this category.

Note that cars that are more than 25 years old are exempt from EPA standards also. They can be brought in relatively easily. The Show and Display category is for modern supercars like the Porsche 959, Bugatti EB110, etc. And some modern cars have been turned down this category. Check the NHTSA website. It is a very selective program. All of AmeriSpec's cars are grandfathered in under this category, however, and are now legally here under Show and Display status.

In 1996, OBDII became a mandatory EPA requirement. McLarens don't have OBDII. Therefore, 1996 and later McLarens are not eligible for the show and display exemption. They are typically only brought into the US under a temporary tourist exemption or as racecars (these travel under 90-day permits called racing carnets). But once the cars clear customs under these classifications, owners do things like drive them on dealer plates, etc. There's all kinds of tricks--it's up to the owners what risks they want to take, and how much they are willing to spend.

As you probably know, at least one has been confiscated by customs. Xotech, any updates on that one? Last I heard, it was on a pallet in a warehouse, breathing the same air as animal skins, firearms, drugs, industrial machinery bound for Iraq and N. Korea, etc. etc.!

wierd

I don't know who your source is for stating that Amerispec (Richard Fritz) brought the cars in "incomplete". Fritz recevied a VIN identifier from SAE and became a "manufacturer" under the DOT WMI listings. Neither Fritz nor AMerispe/Tech is listed as a mnaufacturer in CT, as required by state law. Supposidly the cars were converted in a free trade zone. I don't buy any of this.
the EPA certifcates for the Amerispec McLarens - 7 plus Lenos - did not go to Fritz. They went to JK Technologies. And I don't beleive that JK has ever had a working chassis dyno as required of an ICI so the few cars that were used for the cert test were done in Ann Arbor At the time, Fritz was not registered as a RI or ICI which he should have been. The manufacture status created by this outfit is a farce, IMHO. And I suspect someone you and I know at DOT helped, IMHO
The only car that I aware of that was "altered" was one of Lauren's. But the pictures are misleading. Raised suspension to meet bumper heights? Square headlights? I don't think so. In the R&T article, the TX owner stated that he and his wife traveled to CT to pick up his car and then they drove it back to TX. How could they do this if the two passenger seats had been removed per DOT standards which Fritzie says he met?

who me

None of the Amerispec cars are grandfathered under S&D. Lauren applied within the six month grace period but has not completed the process. Leno's car has been approved under S&D but the EPA cert is wrong, IMHO. Leno's car, 015, is a 1994. The cert it came in on is to JK for 1995s.

realy

Originally posted by gerd
The only car that I aware of that was "altered" was one of Lauren's. But the pictures are misleading. Raised suspension to meet bumper heights? Square headlights? I don't think so. In the R&T article, the TX owner stated that he and his wife traveled to CT to pick up his car and then they drove it back to TX. How could they do this if the two passenger seats had been removed per DOT standards which Fritzie says he met?
Read his post again
One of the passenger seats was also removed, but it was a simple matter of replacing and securing the seat cushions to bring the McLaren back to its original configuration.

Does anyone know any web site that sell the mclaren f1 road car die cast model?:(

search google and ebay.

Gerd,
you seem to know a fair amount of inside info. I was wondering if you know of a McLaren in Egypt?

I have heard that one is coming out of Egypt to the US. That's all I know right now, but I thought you might have more info.

This is a complete guess, but I know Harrods sponsored one for a while. I also know that Mohammed Al-Fayed (father of Dodi--Princess Diana's companion at the time of her tragic accident) owns Harrods. Could it be that car?

Maybe he did personally own the car, but he is based in England, so why would the car be in Egypt? Unless he kept it at some relative's house or at a summer retreat or something?
Rgds,
Faisal.

Originally posted by faisalkhan
This is a complete guess, but I know Harrods sponsored one for a while. I also know that Mohammed Al-Fayed (father of Dodi--Princess Diana's companion at the time of her tragic accident) owns Harrods. Could it be that car?


Well, the Harrods car was an F1 GTR, so wouldn't that rule it out as a possibility being that there are no provisions from our government to allow import of any F1 GTRs?

The Harrod's sponsored car was GTR #06R btw - and after Mach One Racing used it for the 1995 and 1996 GT Racing seasons, it was later raced in 1997 in the FIA GT series by a team named MVR. They used the car for two races that year - the season opener at Hockenheim and the following race at Silverstone. In both races, the car was far off the pace of the newer F1 GTR long tails and newer competitors. The car then failed to qualify at for the Helsinki race and the team ended up replacing it with a new Lotus Elise GT1 for the remainder of the season.

BTW: Great info in this thread so far. One comment on the Amerispec cars - the interior photo that I have shows covers over both passenger seats and I seem to recall the text of the R7T article confirming that the modifications turned the car into a single seater. It's quite possible that the cars were only modified to satisfy the regulators and then converted back prior to delivery to the customer. That could explain how Mr Beal and his wife were able to drive the car back home.

>8^)
ER

Here's a rare photo of GTR #06R wearing that MVR livery:

I must say that is one of the nicest GTR's ive ever seen.

On topic. Seems strange that they would have to take one passenger seat out? has anyone found out why that is? doesn't make much sense to me.

I hope when i make my millions and get the chance to buy one:rolleyes: that the same things do not imply in AUS.

Originally posted by Vt Fusion
I must say that is one of the nicest GTR's ive ever seen.

On topic. Seems strange that they would have to take one passenger seat out? has anyone found out why that is? doesn't make much sense to me.

I hope when i make my millions and get the chance to buy one:rolleyes: that the same things do not imply in AUS.

I wouldn't get your hopes up. Except for older cars, all road-registered cars in Aus have to be right hand drive. The Mclaren, with the driver's seat in the middle, does not qualify.

I imagine you could race-rego it though, just don't get caught cruising down George St on a Friday night! :-)

Read his post again
One of the passenger seats was also removed, but it was a simple matter of replacing and securing the seat cushions to bring the McLaren back to its original configuration.

IN order for the F1 to meet FMVSS standards, both seats had to be removed. McLaren's engineer TB met with DOT years ago to discuss legalizing the F1. DOT determined that the seat configuration meant the two passenger seats would require air bags, something McLaren would not do. The Fritze solution was to put covers over the seats to make it look like flat storage space. I have the photos. Unless Beal had the seats redone somewhere else, they were probably done at Frtizes. Or never done at all, IMHO. What F1 owner in his right mind would let the headlights be replaced with Mickey Mouse units from AutoZone? Raising the ride height to the height I have in the photos would mean the F1 would not met FMVSS side impact regs.

wow thats one nice car

Originally posted by gerd
IN order for the F1 to meet FMVSS standards, both seats had to be removed. McLaren's engineer TB met with DOT years ago to discuss legalizing the F1. DOT determined that the seat configuration meant the two passenger seats would require air bags, something McLaren would not do. The Fritze solution was to put covers over the seats to make it look like flat storage space. I have the photos. Unless Beal had the seats redone somewhere else, they were probably done at Frtizes. Or never done at all, IMHO. What F1 owner in his right mind would let the headlights be replaced with Mickey Mouse units from AutoZone? Raising the ride height to the height I have in the photos would mean the F1 would not met FMVSS side impact regs.

Well the seats in Beal's car were definitley redone at some point as all the photos of his car since importation show both passenger seats in place without the covers. Do you have more detailed photos of the modifications made to the Ameritech F1's than the two small photos that I have seen?

Regarding the other mods you list, yes they were cheesey, but nothing prevents the customer from chaging the car back after it has completed the approval process. I wouldn't be surprised if many customers simply had Amerispec change the cars back to stock prior to delivery - I certainly wouldn't have brought my F1 home looking like that.

I took a tour of Motorex - the LA-based company that imports and helps federalize Skyline GTR's - and they explained that the changes they make to the Skylines must all be photo documented for the DOT for each car they import. Once those changes are made, and the vehicle is approved for import they explained that anyone could change the car back to JDM or Euro stock configuration. In the case of the Skyline, that's not so necessary though, as all the changes that are made by Motorex are invisible from the outside of the car.

Wouldn't Amerispec Corp or J.K. Tech have needed to document the changes to the F1 in the same way Motorex must? Taking photos of each car in it's modified state to prove that the work was done in order to get them through that little loophole? That's what I would imagine, but obviously you and faisalkhan have better info on that than I would.

BTW: I'm not ignoring your email - I just haven't had a chance to dig up the photos you requested. Thanks for your patience!

>8^)
ER

I would love to see some pictures of Amerispec F1's in their modified state. If anyone has them, could you please post them?

Originally posted by MeanRex7
I would love to see some pictures of Amerispec F1's in their modified state. If anyone has them, could you please post them?

I have a small photo of the exterior that is fairly common around the net. I also have a smaller photo of the interior that is rather rare. Unfortunately, they are on my home PC so unless someone beats me to it, I'll have to post them for you later.

>8^)
ER

I remember seeing one of these pictures of a McLaren with the hideous bumper modifications. Peloton, I will wait for you to post your pics, and if they are not the same one, then I will try to dig up the one I had. It was in an issue of Departures magazine, so I am not sure I will be able to find it as I don't think that a lot of libraries carry the back issues.

Rgds,
Faisal.

Do you have more detailed photos of the modifications made to the Ameritech F1's than the two small photos that I have seen?

Yes. I have numerous photo of the entire operation including one of RL's lifted on a forklift but I will not post them.

Regarding the other mods you list, yes they were cheesey, but nothing prevents the customer from chaging the car back after it has completed the approval process.
Illegal

I wouldn't be surprised if many customers simply had Amerispec change the cars back to stock prior to delivery -

Bingo!

Motorex went to a lot of trouble to meet FMVSS. It's a shame that many GTRs are here illegally thereby violating what Motorex did.


Wouldn't Amerispec Corp or J.K. Tech have needed to document the changes to the F1 in the same way Motorex must?

Yes, by law Amerispec/Fritze should have. One must ask the question of why Mr. Fritz has always been able to bring in cars no on else could, like RL's 959. So one would look back to the original founders of the Ferrari Club of America and see that a member works for DOT/OVSC. Fritz was a founder. You do the addition. There is a lot more to the Amerispec tomfoolery. Look for it in the press sometime soon.

Here are the photos I promised you guys of the Amerispec Corp - Ameritech F1.

http://a8.cpimg.com/image/4E/2B/12302158-4572-01F5010C-.jpg

http://a6.cpimg.com/image/6A/87/17891946-346b-00C80086-.jpg

Don't bitch at me because it looks so hideous - none of that stuff was my idea. ;) :D

>8^)
ER

P.S.: Gerd - check your PM's :cool:

The top photo is the same one that I have seen.

Interesting about the seats...this conversion actually makes it harder to get in and out of the car. There's now a ledge that you would have to clamber over or shuffle across somehow. I would definitely yank that out.

What's this about it being illegal? There is no definitive rule on this. I know because I checked with NHTSA. It depends on the argument you make, but in all of the cases I can think of, it is still legal.

1. You can argue that cars cannot have a passenger to the left of the driver, but RHD cars can (there is no requirement that cars in America be RHD, just that they drive on the right side).

2. You can say that two front seat passengers are not allowed, but the ruling is for cars with two front seats or only two restraint systems. This one has three.

3. You can say that two front passenger seats are not allowed, but this car's passenger seats are not at the same position as the driver, so they can easily be classified as rear passenger seats.

Gerd, can you show me the the FMVSS that is being violated?

Finally, even if a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (or two) is being violated, the Show and Display category was specifically created for cars that cannot be easily brought into conformance.

So then your only argument can be they were not imported or petitioned for properly. I suggest you take that up with NHTSA. But if there's someone in there who is a pal of Dick Fritz's, then I doubt you will get very far. Personally, I am glad that the cars are here. Why should we be deprived of cars that the rest of the world can enjoy?

Rgds,
Faisal.

Well any car sold in the US after 1988 needed a passive restraint system for the driver and front passengers. Remember the wave of door-mounted, motorized roll-back seat belts??

Then - in 1991, I think - the government required that there be at least a driver's airbag, and shortly after that, passenger airbags were required as well. If it's true that Amerispec used a loophole in the kit car regulations to get these cars in, then I can't understand why they couldn't get around those regulations as I don't know of any other kit cars that retain the airbags. :confused:

I still maintain that there is nothing illegal about the owner modifying the car back to it's original form once it has cleared through DOT. Sure, there is a little more scrutiny surrounding these cars than your average Camry or Accord, but people regularly make modifications to their own car that would not allow it to be certified by the DOT if they had to pass through their processes once again.

Truth be told - I think the government requiring any modifcations to be made to a car like the McLaren F1 to legalize it for importation is just complete crap, for lack of a better word. The car is obviouosly safe, the BMW engine is not a 'gross-polluter', and having some ICI making random changes to a million dollar car seems to spoil it's greatness somewhat. The level of impact that the 25-30 possible F1's that might make it here is so microscopically small, that I really see absolutlely no need for any of it. Our DOT, NHTSA, EPA, and IIHS really can suck sometimes. :mad:

>8^)
ER

What's this about it being illegal? There is no definitive rule on this. I know because I checked with NHTSA. It depends on the argument you make, but in all of the cases I can think of, it is still legal.

Define definitive. Who did you check with at NHTSA? DOT? OVSC? Maybe Fritzees buddy? The cars should have been brough in under VCP or VSP. OVSC knows they made a mistake but won't admit it. Frtizee tried to bring a few of teh F1s and the two Bugattis in his possession in through Canada and other venues.

1. You can argue that cars cannot have a passenger to the left of the driver, but RHD cars can (there is no requirement that cars in America be RHD, just that they drive on the right side).

FMVSS is written ambidextorously. However, it does consider that cars are LHD. And Title 49 or any other law is not an end in its self. There are administrative rules, interps, etc.
TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 31, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Trevor Buttle -- McLaren Cars Limited

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTERS DATED 6/30/94 AND 8/9/94 FROM TREVOR BUTTLE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: This responds to your letters concerning the F1 road car manufactured by your company. The F1 has a unique seating configuration, with the driver's seat located at the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. The vehicle also has two passenger seats, lo cated on each side of the driver's seat, with the seating reference points for the passenger seats located 320 mm rearward of the driver's seating reference point. You stated that the driver's seat is fitted with a four-point harness (which you say is n ot a Type 1 or Type 2 belt), while the passenger seats both have three-point, Type 2 belts. You are considering importing the car into the United States and asked whether the restraint systems installed in the vehicle meet the requirements of Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As explained below, the restraint system installed at the driver's seat may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208, but the restraint systems installed at the passenger seats do n ot.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicl es and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, as is the practice in Europe. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in all passenger cars. The F1 road car would be subject to these requirements. Different belt installation requirements apply depending on the seating position within the vehicle and the date of manufacture. For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standrad No. 208 requires automatic crash protection at every front out board seating position, Type 2 belts at every forward facing rear outboard designated seating position, and a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at every other seating position.


Thus, to determine what type of occupant protection is required at each of the seating positions in the F1 road car, it is necessary to determine how each of the seating positions would be categorized. An "outboard designated seating position" is define d in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as "a designated seating position where a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to the outboard side of the seat cushion is less than 12 inches from the innermost point on the inside surface of the vehicle at a height between the design H-point and the shoulder reference point . . . and longitudinally between the front and rear edges of the seat cushion." Based on the location of the two passenger seats, it appears that the driver's seat is located at least 12 inches from the side of t he vehicle and would not be considered an "outboard designated seating position." Therefore, Standard No. 208 requires a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's seat in the F1 road car. If the four-point harness installed at the driver's sea t does not meet the requirements for one or the other of these two types of belts, the vehicle would not comply with Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 208, at S4.1.4.2(c), defines "rear outboard designated seating position," in relevant part as "any outboard designated seating position . . . that is rearward of the front seat(s). . ." We interpret this to mean that an outboard designated s eating position must be completely rearward of the front seat or seats in order to be considered a rear outboard designated seating position. Therefore, the two passenger seats in the F1 road car would be considered front outboard designated seating pos itions, and as such, would be required to provide automatic crash protection for the occupants. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protect ion requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currentl y offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Beginning with passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1996, a new Federal requirement will be phased in making air bags accompanied by manual Type 2 seat belts mandatory.

Although Standard No. 208 does not require it, this agency strongly encourages you to provide an air bag for the F1's driver. In establishing Standard No. 208's automatic protection requirements and later amending the standard to require air bags, NHTSA anticipated that applying the requirements to the front outboard positions would result in all driver's seating positions being covered. The agency did not apply the requirements to the center seating position largely because that seating position is ra rely used. However, that would not be true if that position were also the driver's seating position. Especially since air bags will be provided for the drivers of all other passenger cars, we urge you to provide that same added protection for drivers o f the F1.

I note that NHTSA has procedures in 49 CFR Part 555 for temporarily exempting vehicles from our safety standards. These procedures may be used by small volume manufacturers such as McLaren to market vehicles that do not (or cannot) comply with the stand ards. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Part 555.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.



2. You can say that two front seat passengers are not allowed, but the ruling is for cars with two front seats or only two restraint systems. This one has three.

See above.

3. You can say that two front passenger seats are not allowed, but this car's passenger seats are not at the same position as the driver, so they can easily be classified as rear passenger seats.

See interp

Gerd, can you show me the the FMVSS that is being violated?

I have no plans to show you anthing because you ar not in a postion to enforce the regs. For all I know, you may be Fritzee

Finally, even if a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (or two) is being violated, the Show and Display category was specifically created for cars that cannot be easily brought into conformance.

Amerispec pulled the wool over the Feds eyes. And there had to be inside assistance, IMHO. Modifying the cars would decimate the value besides making them undrivable or unsafe or both.

So then your only argument can be they were not imported or petitioned for properly. I suggest you take that up with NHTSA. But if there's someone in there who is a pal of Dick Fritz's, then I doubt you will get very far. Personally, I am glad that the cars are here. Why should we be deprived of cars that the rest of the world can enjoy?

No one should be deprived. But it should be a level playing field for those who wish to import. It isn't. Been there, done that.

Peloton,
the whole point of Show and Display is to allow cars that don't meet various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to be driven on the road. So it doesn't matter what was required in 1991 or whenever.

They only have to meet EPA requirements.
Rgds,
Faisal.

it's not that bad

Originally posted by faisalkhan
Peloton,
the whole point of Show and Display is to allow cars that don't meet various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to be driven on the road. So it doesn't matter what was required in 1991 or whenever.

They only have to meet EPA requirements.
Rgds,
Faisal.

I'm aware of what Show&Display is for, but thanks for clarifying it for any who may not know.

What we're talking about now though, is how Amerispec Corp was able to import these seven cars prior to the S&D legislation being enacted. At that point, all of those guidelines I mentioned would have applied and should have been followed. I believe that's why gerd maintains they were brought in illegally.

gerd's info seems to explain rather clearly that certain regulations or guidelines may have been overlooked or ignored to allow for the Ameritech cars to come in. There doesn't seem to be a better explanation for that than the conspiracy that he eludes to either.

>8^)
ER

While I do believe that loopholes were exploited, I don't believe that any illegalities were committed. Things that are not explicitly defined by law always lead to a loophole that can be exploited by those who are creative and resourceful enough to exploit them. For example, if these cars were imported into a free trade zone, perhaps without being declared as cars. They could be classified as rolling chassis with mounted powerplant, or whatever. That's perfectly legal.

Car companies ship prototypes like that all the time. Even if they work perfectly, they can be classified as prototypes for any plausible reason. It doesn't have to be fact, it just has to be plausible, and it will stand up in court. It's perfectly legal. A saucepan can be a steel utensil, cooking instrument, saucepan, or circular metal plate with handle. How it's classified upon importation depends on which items are dutiable and which aren't, and how well the importer knows the business.

If AmeriSpec was registered as a manufacturer and had not finished its work on the car, then it is indeed a prototype in AmeriSpec's eyes. This is just one example of a loophole or grey area. There's a million others.

Perhaps AmeriSpec made some representations that were a bit of a stretch, but I doubt they can be prosecuted for them now. I seriously doubt NHTSA colluded with them in any way. Even if someone at NHTSA is good friends with Dick Fritz, it doesn't mean that he would contravene the law.

Most related industries have individuals who have cultivated and maintain personal relationships. That is not a significant fact in and of itself. Wouldn't anyone contact their personal friends to speed things up or get help and advice? Unless money exchanged hands and was not accounted for, it's perfectly legal. And if anything untoward did happen, someone would have to be willing to testify or prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

To bring this case to court, one would have to convince a DA that there's enough evidence to overcome presumption of innocence, meet the burden of proof, and justify it in terms of cost and benefit to society, etc.

At the end of the day, AmeriSpec satisfied the NHTSA and the customers got their cars. End of story, no?

"While I do believe that loopholes were exploited, I don't believe that any illegalities were committed."

Wrong. Are you a lawyer?

"Things that are not explicitly defined by law always lead to a loophole that can be exploited by those who are creative and resourceful enough to exploit them. "

Yes, 9/11 is a good example. With this attitude more terrorism is a given.

"For example, if these cars were imported into a free trade zone, perhaps without being declared as cars. They could be classified as rolling chassis with mounted powerplant, or whatever. That's perfectly legal."

This is not legal, either by DOT or EPA. I would suggest you read 40 CFR on importing engines and laws regarding kit cars. I ask that you cite your source for stating what is not true. REaders should be catuious at what is being stated by you.

"Car companies ship prototypes like that all the time. Even if they work perfectly, they can be classified as prototypes for any plausible reason. It doesn't have to be fact, it just has to be plausible, and it will stand up in court. It's perfectly legal. A saucepan can be a steel utensil, cooking instrument, saucepan, or circular metal plate with handle. How it's classified upon importation depends on which items are dutiable and which aren't, and how well the importer knows the business."

Again, you have not cited any supporting documentation. REaders, this is not correct. OEMs have specific procedure under USC, DOT and EPA regs for importing test cars or prototypes. When a car is placed into the marketplace, a different set of laws apply. This is why cars imported as test mules or prototypes cannot be sold unless they conform to US law, re. EPA and DOT.

"If AmeriSpec was registered as a manufacturer and had not finished its work on the car, then it is indeed a prototype in AmeriSpec's eyes. This is just one example of a loophole or grey area. There's a million others."

It isn't Amerispec's eyes that matter, it is the laws of the US that matter.

"Perhaps AmeriSpec made some representations that were a bit of a stretch, but I doubt they can be prosecuted for them now. I seriously doubt NHTSA colluded with them in any way. Even if someone at NHTSA is good friends with Dick Fritz, it doesn't mean that he would contravene the law. "
The statute of limitations has not run out for variety of violations, civil and criminal. See USC Title 18, 19, and 40.

"Most related industries have individuals who have cultivated and maintain personal relationships. That is not a significant fact in and of itself. Wouldn't anyone contact their personal friends to speed things up or get help and advice? Unless money exchanged hands and was not accounted for, it's perfectly legal. "

Again, what is your justification for leagl? Readers, this is not correct.

"And if anything untoward did happen, someone would have to be willing to testify or prove it beyond a reasonable doubt."

Many people are willing to testify, but those still holding the reins are covering their tracks. But they cannot do this forever.


"To bring this case to court, one would have to convince a DA that there's enough evidence to overcome presumption of innocence, meet the burden of proof, and justify it in terms of cost and benefit to society, etc. "

You don't convince a DA, if you mean district attorney. You convince a US Attorney.

"At the end of the day, AmeriSpec satisfied the NHTSA and the customers got their cars. End of story, no?"

No. Amerispec broke the law, IMHO. You have no idea what has happened. And I am not going to be the one to spill the beans to you. This issue is far from over.

ok so maby it is

Hehe - this is somewhat like a boxing match... :D

Anyway - I remember reading somewhere in here that the Ameritech F1's were all being required to submit S&D approval requests. Is this true and is that process ongoing?

Thanks!

>8^)
ER

Gerd,
you are making references without being specific, and then you are citing titles and sections without proving their applicability. You say it doesn't matter how the cars were perceived in AmeriSpec's eyes, only in the eyes of the US--well the US sees it only as it is represented by AmeriSpec, or by someone refuting their claims. It's just a matter of how accurately various pieces of paper were filled out and various representations were made. Noone has officially refuted AmeriSpec so far as I know. And if they do, they have an uphill battle in court.

I also think you are splitting hairs. Whether it's a US attorney or District Attorney, or John Ashcroft or Pamela Anderson, who cares? The point of the statement was the legal action, not the exact title of the plaintiff's attorney.

I don't want to get into an argument with you. Only time will tell who is right and who isn't. But I very much doubt that:
1. Charges will be brought against Dick Fritz and/or AmeriSpec in this matter
2. They will be found guilty
3. Charges will be brought against any member of NHTSA in this matter
4. They will be found guilty
5. Any of the cars will be confiscated due to this tempest in a teapot.

Even if all of the above does happen, I don't have a problem with saying I was mistaken and I was wrong. No big deal.

You wrote: No. Amerispec broke the law, IMHO. You have no idea what has happened. And I am not going to be the one to spill the beans to you. This issue is far from over.

First of all, I thought you were saying this was fact. Now you say it's your opinion. Well, why are you allowed to have an opinion if you are so adamant about other people not voicing theirs.

Then you say you won't spill the beans. So how are we supposed to figure out if what you are saying is true or not?

I am curious about your interest in the matter. I am just a car enthusiast who hopes to get one of these cars one day. What is your stake? It sounds like you tried to import the cars and were not able to, and you resent the fact that AmeriSpec was. Or are you a crusader for justice? If so, why won't you reveal who is covering what tracks? And why don't you post with your full name or reveal your identity? What are you afraid of? You sound angry. Why?

Anyways, only time will tell, since you won't. So can we get back to discussing some other aspect of McLarens besides whether they were legally imported by AmeriSpec?

Anyone know about the green one in Egypt?

Thanks,
Faisal.

PS. I think the reference to 9/11 was in extremely poor taste. How does the massacre of 3,000 defenceless individuals (last I heard, that was illegal) or the hijacking of airplanes (explicitly illegal also) have anything to do with loopholes?

man i dont know whos side i am on eny more

"Gerd,
you are making references without being specific, and then you are citing titles and sections without proving their applicability."

I did not cite sections. You make vague references to legal possiblities. From your posts you boviously do not know how the RI and ICI or VCP and VSP programs work.

"You say it doesn't matter how the cars were perceived in AmeriSpec's eyes, only in the eyes of the US--well the US sees it only as it is represented by AmeriSpec, or by someone refuting their claims. It's just a matter of how accurately various pieces of paper were filled out and various representations were made. Noone has officially refuted AmeriSpec so far as I know. And if they do, they have an uphill battle in court. "

You've lost me. Amerispec is not the law to whit, FMVSS or EPA regs. Perception and reality are rarely the same. That is why we have laws.

"I also think you are splitting hairs. Whether it's a US attorney or District Attorney, or John Ashcroft or Pamela Anderson, who cares? The point of the statement was the legal action, not the exact title of the plaintiff's attorney."

Splitting hairs? Pamela Anderson? You erred. It is never the district attorney in such matters, only a USA.

"I don't want to get into an argument with you. Only time will tell who is right and who isn't. But I very much doubt that:
1. Charges will be brought against Dick Fritz and/or AmeriSpec in this matter"

No charges? How do you know this? Do you think or believe this becasue of the "business as usual" way in which the RI/ICI progams have been abused? I think many are in for a shock.

"2. They will be found guilty "

There is always a first time.

"3. Charges will be brought against any member of NHTSA in this matter"

Trust me.

"4. They will be found guilty"

This has occured and is ongoing.

"5. Any of the cars will be confiscated due to this tempest in a teapot."

One down, more to go.

"Even if all of the above does happen, I don't have a problem with saying I was mistaken and I was wrong. No big deal. "

Yes, it is a big deal because you made statements which have little to no foundation; that leave the reader beleiving something which is fiction is fact.

"You wrote: No. Amerispec broke the law, IMHO. You have no idea what has happened. And I am not going to be the one to spill the beans to you. This issue is far from over.

First of all, I thought you were saying this was fact. Now you say it's your opinion. Well, why are you allowed to have an opinion if you are so adamant about other people not voicing theirs."

Then you say you won't spill the beans. So how are we supposed to figure out if what you are saying is true or not?"

Pull as you may, I'm not going to play.

"I am curious about your interest in the matter. I am just a car enthusiast who hopes to get one of these cars one day. What is your stake? It sounds like you tried to import the cars and were not able to, and you resent the fact that AmeriSpec was. Or are you a crusader for justice? If so, why won't you reveal who is covering what tracks? And why don't you post with your full name or reveal your identity? What are you afraid of? You sound angry. Why?"

Sorry, not going to play. As to anonymity, I don't see any personal info coming from you.

"PS. I think the reference to 9/11 was in extremely poor taste. How does the massacre of 3,000 defenceless individuals (last I heard, that was illegla) or the hijacking of airplanes (explicitly illegal also) have anything to do with loopholes?"

The reference to 9/11 was more than approptiate given the tone of your comment. You said: "Things that are not explicitly defined by law always lead to a loophole that can be exploited by those who are creative and resourceful enough to exploit them." Sure explains how the terroists were able to get passports, tickets, weapons, etc. by being
"creative and resourceful enough to exploit them (loopholes)" Would you argue that an illegal car is not a prime method to deliver a dirty bomb?

Only time will tell who is right and who isn't.

But I very much doubt that:
1. Charges will be brought against Dick Fritz and/or AmeriSpec in this matter
2. They will be found guilty
3. Charges will be brought against any member of NHTSA in this matter
4. They will be found guilty
5. Any of the cars will be confiscated due to this tempest in a teapot.

I think the reference to 9/11 was in extremely poor taste.

you guys write too damn much in 1 post so i dont bother to read;)

gerd - which Ameritech F1 was given the boot? Has it been confiscated? What's the story on that, as this is the first that I have heard?

>8^)
ER

I have only heard of Customs confiscating one McLaren F1, and so far as I know, AmeriSpec was in no way involved in that car's importation. Gerd, do you know differently?

Rgds,
Faisal.

Originally posted by Peloton25
gerd - which Ameritech F1 was given the boot? Has it been confiscated? What's the story on that, as this is the first that I have heard?

Hey gerd? Are you going to provide an answer to this? I'm realy curious to hear more about what is going on. If you can't say specifically, can you give me a time line for when some of the doomsday stuff you are preaching ;) might begin to come out publicly.

Thanks

>8^)
ER

Originally posted by pennyho
you guys write too damn much in 1 post so i dont bother to read;)

You really should, both sides in this have become very interesting IMO. Although I have no real interest in this matter, I will continue to read every lcharacter of what they write, and listen to the opinions that have been voiced.

Someone going to this much trouble deserves to have their thoughts read by someone.

The 7 original Amerispec cars were extended the provision of the Show & Display exemption. All 7 cars were allowed to stay and were considered legally remaining if indeed each current owner applied for Show & Display and assuming that each car passed the EPA smog requirements for the year of manufacture of each car, 1994 and 1995 in all 7 cases.

The current state of those 7 cars relative to the Show & Display remains to be seen. Not all of them have completed the S&D requirements. Some have been pulled prior to certification and few have been EPA tested.

They are legal to stay, but they must file for S&D and pass EPA. What will happen to the cars (and owners) that have not complied with the law and the requirements? It will inevitably lead to the seizure of the car and manditory export. That process is not a fast one and may not catch up to the owners for possibly years to come, as it has been more than a year since the advent of the Show & Display provision.

Only one car has been seized as a result of improper importation. That car was not an Amerispec car. (The car that Faisal mentioned) That owner attempted to import the car through his own personal and creative means. He was not successful and the car remains in customs seizure. It's future is still unknown as is the nature of the fines that the owner will incur.

Thanks for the info XOTech - excellent and unbaised as always...

Now, do you think that the Ameritech F1 owners could snub their noses at the govt's requirement that they complete the S&D process? I mean technically, the cars were brought in legitimently based on the method used by Amerispec and laws at that time, were they not?

Wouldn't the clauses in the Constitution surrounding ex post facto laws being illegal apply here, since Show&Display legislation came sometime after those seven cars were given government approval? It makes sense to me... but I don't claim to know a whole lot about the business of vehicle importation.

From another angle, weren't the Ameritech cars required to meet the EPA standards for their year of manufacture at the time of their federalization? Or, was that step bypassed due to the approval process which they were imported under? I believe they were somehow classified as kit-cars if I recall correctly. It seems that if they have already gone through that process then it should be an issue at this point.

Why would an owner even want to achieve S&D status for their F1 since it would impose usage limitations on the vehicle that I assume they don't have at this point (2500 mile per yer limit).

These are just a few of the things I guess I don't really understand about these 7 F1s and if you or anyone else could shed some light on it, I'd really appreciate it!

>8^)
ER

"Now, do you think that the Ameritech F1 owners could snub their noses at the govt's requirement that they complete the S&D process? I mean technically, the cars were brought in legitimently based on the method used by Amerispec and laws at that time, were they not? "

It's my opinion that the Amerispec cars (including Lenos) are not illegal. Amerispec called all 8 cars 1995s because, I suspect, to get around the EPA OBD II requirements. Of the 8 cars, 4 are 1996 or newer McLarens. Amerspeci did not manufacture these cars!!!!! All were offered the opportunity to transfer to S&D. Only Lauren applied for his two cars during the six month grace period but he never finished the applications. There were no "laws" that allowed Fritz to do what he did. I opine it was illegal.

"Wouldn't the clauses in the Constitution surrounding ex post facto laws being illegal apply here, since Show&Display legislation came sometime after those seven cars were given government approval? It makes sense to me... but I don't claim to know a whole lot about the business of vehicle importation. "

I have no idea what you are saying here.

"From another angle, weren't the Ameritech cars required to meet the EPA standards for their year of manufacture at the time of their federalization? Or, was that step bypassed due to the approval process which they were imported under? I believe they were somehow classified as kit-cars if I recall correctly. It seems that if they have already gone through that process then it should be an issue at this point."

Yes, the Ameritech cars were required to meet EPA regs. At the time, Amerispec was neither an RI or ICI. The EPA "testing" was done at Ann Arbor by EPA and the two certificates were given to JK Technologies. EPA has acknowledged that the Amerispec cars are in fact McLarens. FOIA the info for yourself. Kit cars? EPA has strict regs on kit cars. I doubt this, but anything is possible.

"Why would an owner even want to achieve S&D status for their F1 since it would impose usage limitations on the vehicle that I assume they don't have at this point (2500 mile per yer limit). "

An owner would not. But the cars were presented falsely, my opinion.

As a car collector I have come to dislike the massive influx of illegal vehicles, often "converted" (read: destroyed) by RIs and ICIs. Both DOT and EPA warn users of these companies services.
The security risks alone, given the current terroist situation, is enough to want the entire progams eliminated. Just a look around most of the boards here show numerous examples of vehicles which have been imported illegally. I've heard all the excuses and reasons. Many seem to take pride in lying on an HS-7 form or illegally using Box five for entry. If you don't like the laws, change them. Otherwise, I see these actions as a threat to the security of the US and my family and friends. Personally, I know of numerous instances were illegal cars were used to launder money, bring in drugs, or had suspicious middle eastern connections. Sure, you get your car in, one time. You don't care how anyone else does it. Until it shows up on your doorstep.

grrr...again you write long posts:p, good thing im not reading

Err, a few things that caught my eye:

1. You wrote that they are NOT ILLEGAL. That means you think they are LEGAL. Read your own post. Don't try to do something clever like going back and editing it, because I have quoted your original post below.

2. as a car collector...
This made me laugh. Please! Tell us what's in your "collection" or is this information classified as well? Don't worry, we understand if you don't want to reveal the contents of your "collection". And no, I don't mean stuff you are selling on consignment, model cars you have in a cabinet, or some other crap. Not your daddy's cars, either. I mean clear ownership by you (clear title in your name) of real motor vehicles.

3. RIs and ICIs destroy cars when converting them to American spec.? Hardly. Euro-spec cars that have been converted are regularly allowed into concours events and shows, and regularly win prizes. They are accepted in all historical registers and allowed to participate in all events. This holds true for all marques whose clubs I belong to eg. Ferrari, Porsche, Maserati etc., and it's the same with other specialty cars such as rally cars. I know the secretaries of numerous such clubs and can put you in touch, if you like.

4. Noone is falling for your mindless bleating that somehow these cars are used in terrorism. Sure, yeah, right, uh huh. We really believe that someone would buy a very conspicuous, outrageously expensive, and incredibly rare car when they want to blend in and get something done as cheaply as possible.

And we all believe you when you say that such a car is great for avoiding scrutiny at the ports and smuggling things in. Just to give you the benefit of the doubt, I asked Inspector Richard Avery at Oakland customs, John Mendoza at Port Huyneme in Los Angeles, and inspector Mitchell at Miami customs. They all laughed at your suggeston.

These cars are gone over with a fine-toothed comb because they come in so rarely and also because the members of the customs vehicle inspection teams are car enthusiasts themselves. They have xray machines that they drive each entire truck and container through. Plus, they get the car's history and engineering drawings and diagrams directly from the manufacturers just so they know where any hidden compartments and cavities might be.

Would you care to cite your sources or the scientific research that leads you to your (retarded) conclusions?

And of course, we all know that McLarens are readily available at any corner rental outfit.

Your earnest, fearful posts are pathetic. They make you sound even more stupid, although I didn't think that was possible after your earlier posts. Ha ha, what a complete idiot. I can't wait to see how you drag 9/11 back into this. We all know how many illegal McLaren F1s, Bugattis EB110s , CLK-GTRs, Porsche 959s and Pagani Zondas were used in that, or in any other terrorist attack that has ever occurred.

My pet lizard has a greater IQ, and I don't even have one! Pennyho, thanks for reading!!!!

Originally posted by gerd
"Now, do you think that the Ameritech F1 owners could snub their noses at the govt's requirement that they complete the S&D process? I mean technically, the cars were brought in legitimently based on the method used by Amerispec and laws at that time, were they not? "

It's my opinion that the Amerispec cars (including Lenos) are not illegal. Amerispec called all 8 cars 1995s because, I suspect, to get around the EPA OBD II requirements. Of the 8 cars, 4 are 1996 or newer McLarens. Amerspeci did not manufacture these cars!!!!! All were offered the opportunity to transfer to S&D. Only Lauren applied for his two cars during the six month grace period but he never finished the applications. There were no "laws" that allowed Fritz to do what he did. I opine it was illegal.

"Wouldn't the clauses in the Constitution surrounding ex post facto laws being illegal apply here, since Show&Display legislation came sometime after those seven cars were given government approval? It makes sense to me... but I don't claim to know a whole lot about the business of vehicle importation. "

I have no idea what you are saying here.

"From another angle, weren't the Ameritech cars required to meet the EPA standards for their year of manufacture at the time of their federalization? Or, was that step bypassed due to the approval process which they were imported under? I believe they were somehow classified as kit-cars if I recall correctly. It seems that if they have already gone through that process then it should be an issue at this point."

Yes, the Ameritech cars were required to meet EPA regs. At the time, Amerispec was neither an RI or ICI. The EPA "testing" was done at Ann Arbor by EPA and the two certificates were given to JK Technologies. EPA has acknowledged that the Amerispec cars are in fact McLarens. FOIA the info for yourself. Kit cars? EPA has strict regs on kit cars. I doubt this, but anything is possible.

"Why would an owner even want to achieve S&D status for their F1 since it would impose usage limitations on the vehicle that I assume they don't have at this point (2500 mile per yer limit). "

An owner would not. But the cars were presented falsely, my opinion.

As a car collector I have come to dislike the massive influx of illegal vehicles, often "converted" (read: destroyed) by RIs and ICIs. Both DOT and EPA warn users of these companies services.
The security risks alone, given the current terroist situation, is enough to want the entire progams eliminated. Just a look around most of the boards here show numerous examples of vehicles which have been imported illegally. I've heard all the excuses and reasons. Many seem to take pride in lying on an HS-7 form or illegally using Box five for entry. If you don't like the laws, change them. Otherwise, I see these actions as a threat to the security of the US and my family and friends. Personally, I know of numerous instances were illegal cars were used to launder money, bring in drugs, or had suspicious middle eastern connections. Sure, you get your car in, one time. You don't care how anyone else does it. Until it shows up on your doorstep.

Originally posted by gerd
"Wouldn't the clauses in the Constitution surrounding ex post facto laws being illegal apply here, since Show&Display legislation came sometime after those seven cars were given government approval? It makes sense to me... but I don't claim to know a whole lot about the business of vehicle importation. "

I have no idea what you are saying here.


"Ex post facto" is Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws. Article 1 section 9 and section 10 both make this practice of creating laws that apply retroactively illegal.

= = = = =

Basically, what I'm arguing is that they can't let the cars pass through the system one year, and then come back the next year with their S&D laws and expect those vehicles which were allowed through previously to have to conform to those new laws. It's simply not legal to do that and I can't understand why the government would be requesting the Ameritech F1 owners to submit S&D approval paperwork. Those seven cars should be free and clear of those guidelines because they were "legally" imported under the old rules, whatever rules those may have been.

Also, I was working under the assumption that Amerispec imported the engines and chassis seperately and then put the cars back together using the kit car legislation to make that legal. Is that not what happened? I'm sure I read that scenario somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Don't beat me up if that's not true - just tell me what is correct, or the scenario that you understand to be true.

>8^)
ER

Like he said, he has no idea what you are talking about!!!

How dare you sneak relevant facts into his "sky is falling, sky is falling" scenario...lol!



Originally posted by Peloton25


Basically, what I'm arguing is that they can't let the cars pass through the system one year, and then come back the next year with their S&D laws and expect those vehicles which were allowed through previously to have to conform to those new laws. It's simply not legal to do that and I can't understand why the government would be requesting the Ameritech F1 owners to submit S&D approval paperwork. Those seven cars should be free and clear of those guidelines because they were "legally" imported under the old rules, whatever rules those may have been.

>8^)
ER

Faisal: It is soooo tempting to respond. But that would spoil the ....

http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.php/463c5922/arguing.jpg

LOL :D No offense intended in either case, I just thought that belonged in here... ;)

As amusing as it may be... Can you two quit fighting long enough to answer my questions? Then I'll ring the bell and you can start all over again... :D

>8^)
ER

That's a hilarious picture!

You are correct in that laws cannot be enforced retroactively.

But the law is a living, breathing thing that is constantly changing--cases are often won or lost for incomprehensible reasons (OJ, Rodney King, McDonald's coffee) and laws enacted with the best of intentions have unintended consequences and sometimes erode the freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution--for instance, the right to bear arms implies a right to execute (impose a death sentence) without a trial, indefinite detention on secret evidence (look up Mike Hawash on the web), Patriot Act I and Patriot Act II, etc. have all eroded our rights to privacy, freedom of assembly, free speech, etc. etc.--don't get me started.

So it is hard to say with absolute certainty how things will be. But we do know that these cars are not a threat to national security (gerd, don't get your panties in a twist over this). We also know that the owners are not currently being prosecuted. And we also know that in any trial, government agencies such as the EPA will have to admit to wrongdoing or be proven criminally negligent, if we are to believe gerd.

To whit:
- The owners of these cars have immense political and financial influence.
- Gerd has still not proven that any existing laws were contravened.
- No attorney or law firm is trying this "case"
- This really isn't a national priority (of course gerd thinks it is more important to get these cars away from their legal, rightful owners than unemployment, hunger, world peace, etc.).
So no, I don't think anything is going to come of it. That's why I wrote that gerd was brewing a tempest in a teacup.

Who knows--John Ashcroft might like him in "that" way...not that there's anything wrong with that!

Over to Mr. Amber Alert, although I think he might be tied up listening to suspicious middle eastern music...or he could be busy with all those remedial grammar and spelling lessons...or he could be chasing down rogue ICIs (they bring in weapons of mass destruction after all, don't you see!) and kids with untied shoes and runny noses--oooh, that's definitely a crime against humanity!

Originally posted by gerd
Faisal: It is soooo tempting to respond. But that would spoil the ....

Does this mean that you won't be sharing your car collection with us, then? Lol! Look, I promise not to laugh, whether it's just pics you've stolen off the web, Matchbox, or Burago. So can we see it? Please?

You're hysterical! And so is your writing ability...try forming a complete sentence next time.

I would write more, but I am getting a call from the Far East...whoa, scared you, didn't I?! You thought Middle East, Far East, East Anglia, the Anglican church, and the Mars Candy Co. were all part of a massive conspiracy, didn't you.

You poor, sad, sorry excuse for a human being--do you still live with your mother?:finger:

ex post facto isn't necessarily relevant to passed legistaion. The legislation must reflect ex post facto guidlelines but there is nothing to prevent congress and agencies from passing and creating rules and regulations which repair oversights or clarify previous legislation.
Fact is, OVSC knew what was going on with the seven cars. I've always maintained (my opinion) that there was insider help just as there has been for many years previous. There are reasons why DF has been able to do what no one else can.

gerd, just wondering, what do u do for a living?

hunter, explorer, consultant

:useless:

does enybody have a picture of a black aston martin v12 vanquish

Shouldn't you be asking on the Aston Martin forum?

Black Vanquish picture can be found on the web easily. Go look.

i already have asked the aston martin forum no one could find one

eny way back to the mclaren f1 check out the picturs
http://www.fast-autos.net/mclaren/f1.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/extremesupercarz/mclaren/picture1.jpg

http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_school/chassis/tech_pic_chassis_f50.jpg

http://autozine.kyul.net/classic/mclaren/versions.jpg

http://www.barchetta.cc/all.ferraris/images/0179/1995-mclaren-5.jpg

excuse me farbod, but the pic fo the engine is clealry that of a ferrari, an enzo or maybe an f50, so please stop posting that pics, we've seen them all

maarten

It's an F50

farbod - I probably have pics of a Black Vanquish. I'll try to find your post in the Aston forum and add them later.

>8^)
ER

Farbod, I put one there for you earlier on.

Originally posted by farbod
eny way back to the mclaren f1 check out the picturs
http://www.fast-autos.net/mclaren/f1.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/extremesupercarz/mclaren/picture1.jpg

http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_school/chassis/tech_pic_chassis_f50.jpg

http://autozine.kyul.net/classic/mclaren/versions.jpg

http://www.barchetta.cc/all.ferraris/images/0179/1995-mclaren-5.jpg

i hadn't seen that pic of carl beals car b4, its a scan right? it seems his car has been in moltiple calender shoots.

http://www.fast-autos.net/mclaren/f19.html

http://web.mit.edu/klang/www/McLaren%20F1%20GTR%202.jpg

http://www.fast-autos.net/mclaren/f1gt.jpg

http://www.plus4.freeserve.co.uk/macf1/mac035.jpg

http://www.plus4.freeserve.co.uk/macf1/mac044.jpg

http://www.plus4.freeserve.co.uk/macf1/mac039.jpg

http://www.plus4.freeserve.co.uk/macf1/mac038.jpg

Originally posted by farbod
:useless:

does enybody have a picture of a black aston martin v12 vanquish

farbod - I posted the Black Vanquish photos for you in the "proper forum". Enjoy!

>8^)
ER

thank you i enjoyed looking at all of the astonmartin picturs

Isn't there anything you people can do in USA, like a petition, and send it to the regulating authorities who control what cars available to buy in the country, because IMHO it sucks you didn't get some special cars (Evo 6 (I know you people got the Evo 8 and your own spec WRX STi).

I'm surprised you got the 996 Turbo and Murcielago, two twin turbo monster cars, knowing how strict the idiotic laws are over in the USA (sorry, had to rant even though I am from the UK).

i dont know i am from the uk aswell

the murcielago isn't a twin turbo, it's not even a turbo, it's a naturally aspirated engine just like the mclaren. it couldn't have that awesome sound with turbo's

rgrdss

maarten

i agree with you thier it cant be a twin turbo

http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/uploads/23291/mc2_Small_.jpg

If I told you this car was mine, you wouldn't beleive me.

By the way, I couldn't resist bringing this thread back to life.

why bring a thread like this back?

let the argueing begin....