Fs: Icon 1971 fj40 - Page 2 - Defender Source
Defender Source  

Go Back   Defender Source > Classifieds > For Sale - Vehicles


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old January 4th, 2012, 11:32 PM
MattGuyver_007's Avatar
MattGuyver_007
Status: Offline
Matt VA
1995 D90 SW
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Castle Rock, CO USA
Posts: 159
I find it somewhat hypocritical to be a part of this forum and bash such a vehicle. It's an epic build by any standard and the people behind such a creation are likely just like you- resourceful, clever, innovative, and diligent. Sure, it's expensive but if you have the ability to afford such a unique vehicle and plan to travel beyond the 101 then the FJ Icon should be a consideration. I certainly appreciate what goes into building a truck like this, not to mention the costs associated with running a for-profit business.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #22  
Old January 6th, 2012, 02:04 PM
Suppatime's Avatar
Suppatime
Status: Offline
Drew Suppa
None (yet)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA; USA
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verner Berry View Post
Out of curosity what drives the price up on these trucks? I guess I'm out of touch on what it costs to build one.
Thanks, VB
I've been to Icon's shop in Van Nuys, and they walked me through the entire shop when I was looking at them. Their build process is outstanding. The only thing they don't do is sterilize the entire workshop and make their employees wear white robes.

The chassis are made from scratch and the welds are second to none. I've been around classic trucks and cars for years now, and their welders are seriously among the best. It's truly an art form, and these chassis and bodies are damn-near invincible.

The price is because of the work they put into them. There's no assembly lines, just very serious craftsmen making old-style Landcruisers and Broncos (as of 2011) the way they should have been built if money was never an option to Toyota or Ford.

------ Follow up post added January 6th, 2012 11:08 AM ------

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGuyver_007 View Post
I find it somewhat hypocritical to be a part of this forum and bash such a vehicle. It's an epic build by any standard and the people behind such a creation are likely just like you- resourceful, clever, innovative, and diligent. Sure, it's expensive but if you have the ability to afford such a unique vehicle and plan to travel beyond the 101 then the FJ Icon should be a consideration. I certainly appreciate what goes into building a truck like this, not to mention the costs associated with running a for-profit business.
I agree, hence my above post.

The guys who started the company are passionate about the FJs. They take their time with the builds to insure things are far better than OEM spec could have ever hoped they were.

I'm trying to explain this the best I can, but I know there will be backlash from plenty of business owners who can claim they do the same thing. I'm not saying they can't, but I'm saying most don't. Every detail is sacred to these guys. I've watched a demo of them taking a key and grinding into the paint to show how their electroplating paint process really does mean you can't scratch the thing.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old January 6th, 2012, 02:42 PM
rijosho's Avatar
rijosho
Status: Offline
Joshua
1995 Black ST - Rhinolined edition
Research Assistant/Eagle Eyes
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 16,557
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppatime View Post
I've been to Icon's shop in Van Nuys, and they walked me through the entire shop when I was looking at them. Their build process is outstanding. The only thing they don't do is sterilize the entire workshop and make their employees wear white robes.

The chassis are made from scratch and the welds are second to none. I've been around classic trucks and cars for years now, and their welders are seriously among the best. It's truly an art form, and these chassis and bodies are damn-near invincible.

The price is because of the work they put into them. There's no assembly lines, just very serious craftsmen making old-style Landcruisers and Broncos (as of 2011) the way they should have been built if money was never an option to Toyota or Ford.

Side note. Drew, I love your icon/avatar of Andy Samberg.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	andy-samberg.jpg
Views:	62
Size:	105.4 KB
ID:	45692  
Attached Images
 
__________________
Quote:
I am talking purely from an aesthetics standpoint.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #24  
Old January 6th, 2012, 09:13 PM
mpodgorski's Avatar
mpodgorski
Status: Offline
martin
'94 D90 ST Arles
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: S Florida
Posts: 1,014
SOLD! Thanks D90 source and it's member
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old January 7th, 2012, 07:05 AM
Burke's Avatar
Burke
Status: Offline
Burke Bell
'94 NAS D90 #158
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ponte Vedra Beach, FL
Posts: 1,016
Registry
Broncos? That's pretty cool! I know the question has been raised, but any scuttlebutt about a series Rover in their future? And by the way, that is the first time in my 40 years I've used the word scuttlebutt.
__________________
"I race cars, play tennis, and fondle women, BUT! I have weekends off, and I am my own boss." - Arthur
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old January 7th, 2012, 08:40 AM
down_shift's Avatar
down_shift
Status: Offline
Russell
94' D90 ST & 06' LR3
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 4,118
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpodgorski
SOLD! Thanks D90 source and it's member
Congratulations. I wonder if this sets the record for the vehicle with the highest asking price that was sold due to D-90.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old January 7th, 2012, 05:21 PM
nikojo's Avatar
nikojo
Status: Offline
John
D90 SW -- 2.8PS
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Fly over Country
Posts: 587
Jonathan Ward at Icon will do anything you want but you will have to wait and pay.

Question is what will be the next "Icon" after the Bronco and when????

Series would seem logical as there are parts available and it is similar in construction and design to the FJ, CJ3b, and Bronco. I would love to see a Series from him.

I still don't understand aside from the EPA rules regarding engines how the Icon trucks are any more legal than an assembled Puma truck?? I'm glad it is but just don't understand. And when you account for a 2.8PS in one of them it's really no different. Am I understanding that correctly??
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old January 8th, 2012, 03:51 PM
Suppatime's Avatar
Suppatime
Status: Offline
Drew Suppa
None (yet)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA; USA
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by rijosho View Post
Side note. Drew, I love your icon/avatar of Andy Samberg.
Haha... that's actually a picture of me when I was trying to grow my hair out. Obviously it didn't go well, so I chopped all of it off.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old January 8th, 2012, 04:37 PM
J. Andrew's Avatar
J. Andrew
Status: Offline
J. Andrew
95 D90 NAS SW #384
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikojo View Post
I still don't understand aside from the EPA rules regarding engines how the Icon trucks are any more legal than an assembled Puma truck?? I'm glad it is but just don't understand. And when you account for a 2.8PS in one of them it's really no different. Am I understanding that correctly??
They likely got a "hardship exemption" to the FMVSS as a manufacturer. The reason they are able to do it, is because it is a small company (being based in the US also helps b/c your employees are Americans, your sales/income tax stays here, there's a ton of political entities that like these kinds of companies). They are also not considering it a Toyota FJ40 or a Ford Bronco, it is an Icon FJ etc, again this gives them latitude to their vehicle not being associated with a billion-dollar company who can't legitimately claim economic hardship to bring a vehicle into compliance with all current standards. Land Rover cannot claim that making the Defender compliant would be an economic hardship, because they do so much more business internationally with the Defender that US sales are insignificant, and b/c all their other vehicles feature the standard items (airbags, side impact, etc) that conform with the FMVSS. Its hard to justify that you can't do something if you are already doing it.

An example of this is the recent ruling against Pagani bringing in its new supercar Huyarya (sp?) under the hardship exemption. They attempted to claim the financial loss of (future gains) from sales if they could not import it, in addition to the cost of the re-engineering to add an airbag. The DOT/NHTSA's main point is that airbags are so cheap now (even the crappiest $8k korean soapbox with an engine has airbags, side impact protection) that a legitimate production company can afford to meet the standards if they consider the US market when beginning the engineering of the car.

Joe-schmo d-90 member who "manufactures" a Puma 110 in his local shop is indeed building a "new" vehicle from the gov'ts view, but is building a vehicle that already exists with millions of units. If it was a completely new vehicle, lets call it the "Mountain Lion 1100" (or you could probably use "Puma" since this is not a marketing name) and the truck was essentially a 1 off where you fab'd the whole thing to look like a 110 (you can get away with using some of the parts obviously- but there is an ambiguous cutoff) then Joe would be the manufacturer and could claim the hardship exemption to many of the current FMVSS of his "2012 Puma" and if he made sure he was under the curb weight where anti-lock brakes are req'd then he'd prob get it.


That's about it.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old January 8th, 2012, 06:18 PM
nikojo's Avatar
nikojo
Status: Offline
John
D90 SW -- 2.8PS
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Fly over Country
Posts: 587
Thanks J for the thoughtful response.

I'm not too sure these trucks are being treated as "kit cars" under the law (I'm assuming that is what you possibly describing). I think they are thinking of these as "restorations". The VIN plate from the original chassis is even affixed to the truck AND when these are registered they are registered as Toyo under the original VIN or Willy or whatever.

If what you say is true then it would be "easy" to make a Puma using similar rules. Why hasn't anyone done it ?????
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old January 8th, 2012, 07:20 PM
J. Andrew's Avatar
J. Andrew
Status: Offline
J. Andrew
95 D90 NAS SW #384
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 136
First off I don't want anything I'm saying to come as an attack against anyone else, or a criticism in any way. I am only speaking to what is indeed legal, as I have determined to the best of my ability through the past DOT interpretations. Without exhaustive correspondance with them directly, likely laying out every scenario I can come up with, this is the information that anyone has to work with.

If they are indeed classifying them as "restorations" they're walking a pretty fine line as far as DOT/NHTSA is concerned, as can be learned by searching their past rulings database.

Putting a new body on an old 100% original chassis (rolling chassis) = still original model year car, applicable to all that year's FMVSS.
Putting an old body on a new chassis (rolling chassis) = "new" car, current MY in their book

They never say what the cutoff is, and it sounds like they reserve the right to make determinations on case by case basis on how much you can change and not be making a "new" vehicle, but the consensus was that you can have a new frame if everything else is original (driveline, body), and you can have a new engine, but remaining driveline is supposed to be intact (original axels, diffs).

One thing that they have in their favor is that their base cars have always been in compliance with FMVSS, because they were designed and certified to the level of standards for their year of production. 25 y/o imports are not and have never been certified compliant with any FMVSS regulations, but are legal to import under an exemption clause. THIS IS THE REAL BARRIER. The moment you swap 1 too many thing out on your 1986 110, technically you've made it a newer vehicle, and it has to be brought up to that MY standards or export, D&D etc. Of course i'm not implying that the gov't are checking up on people, b/c this is America and we all have freedoms, and the laws are designed to keep newer cars and cars modified overseas from skirting the reg's.

Tell me what other vehicle, besides a Defender has remained so unchanged in 30 years that you can swap brand new, factory parts on to. Their ambiguous wording has made the defender maybe the only vehicle that they could retroactively make illegal once its already here, due to further modification with newer model year parts (newly manufactured is much more subtle of a distinction). And because your 1986 Defender never had the DOT certification plate, they have complete power to decide tomorrow that it is no longer technically a 25 y/o truck. If you had a 1993 NAS 110, or any of the NAS spec trucks (and I guess Fj40s and Broncos) you could do much more, and I think it would be hard for them to do anything.

Before anyone brings vintage restorations, they are repairing those vehicles. "Restoration" means just that, restoring it to its original condition, fixing body panels, frames etc, not putting a 2012 camero body on a 1969 frame and calling it a 1969 (the camero here would probably be legal though, because the body is compliant). Again, you can find a DOT decision where they decided an importer of Series trucks, had not "restored" them but had "manufactured" them and so they wouldn't let 9 rovers in, and he lost his bonding. They cited that his addition of: power steering, A/C, electric windows, LHD conversion, leather seats, Stereo system, when he "restored" the chassis and body work and interior, changed the spirit of the vehicle enough to not cover them under the 25 year exemption.


It's not prohibitively difficult to get a Puma or a Td5 or whatever, we all know that and see them around. But the people who decide the letter of the law are not stupid, and those enforcing them have way more important things to be doing (including cars higher up on the food chain- think about all the Japanese and German, etc cars that we never got). But having a title isn't what matters, its that DOT cert, and you're way more likely to never get caught, and we all want the cool toy that someone else can't have.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old January 8th, 2012, 07:28 PM
bjf's Avatar
bjf
Status: Offline
barry f
94 ST #395
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: los angeles
Posts: 10,958
Someone should just ask icon or foose or whoever. I would think the icon is ver legal considering the pr that is behind it.
__________________
Quote:
Are there shocks that I can addjust up and down like my friends LX460? That would be very cool!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old January 8th, 2012, 07:47 PM
rijosho's Avatar
rijosho
Status: Offline
Joshua
1995 Black ST - Rhinolined edition
Research Assistant/Eagle Eyes
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 16,557
Registry
Go over there and ask, Barry.
__________________
Quote:
I am talking purely from an aesthetics standpoint.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old January 8th, 2012, 08:25 PM
J. Andrew's Avatar
J. Andrew
Status: Offline
J. Andrew
95 D90 NAS SW #384
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 136
There are a bunch of people who make cars under the hardship exemption, and it is 100% legal, even for a brand new cars, they just have to issue new vins. My main point of distinction to why US companies can do this with the blessing of DOT is that they aren't using late-model (non-DOT approved) cars for parts donors, and the new body parts are reproductions that are modified to fit.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old January 8th, 2012, 09:14 PM
nikojo's Avatar
nikojo
Status: Offline
John
D90 SW -- 2.8PS
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Fly over Country
Posts: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Andrew View Post
First off I don't want anything I'm saying to come as an attack against anyone else, or a criticism in any way............... But having a title isn't what matters, its that DOT cert, and you're way more likely to never get caught, and we all want the cool toy that someone else can't have.
Really well said. This just confirms how "unclear" the laws really are and how susceptible they may be to interpretation........I guess like many other laws.

Thanks for the insight and info.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old January 8th, 2012, 10:28 PM
Roverhound's Avatar
Roverhound
Status: Offline
Walter Dent
2000 D2
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Stuarts Draft, Virginia
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikojo View Post
Thanks J for the thoughtful response.

I'm not too sure these trucks are being treated as "kit cars" under the law (I'm assuming that is what you possibly describing). I think they are thinking of these as "restorations". The VIN plate from the original chassis is even affixed to the truck AND when these are registered they are registered as Toyo under the original VIN or Willy or whatever.

If what you say is true then it would be "easy" to make a Puma using similar rules. Why hasn't anyone done it ?????
I don't think some of you are getting it still. These are not restored from anything, they are built. They aren't kit cars.
http://icon4x4.com/sites/icon4x4.com...INAL-email.pdf
Check it out. They are pretty cool.
__________________
We're not trying to freak out the normal man,
we're trying to out freak the normal man.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old January 9th, 2012, 12:50 AM
DD90's Avatar
DD90
Status: Offline
DD
94 D90
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roverhound View Post
I don't think some of you are getting it still. These are not restored from anything, they are built. They aren't kit cars.
http://icon4x4.com/sites/icon4x4.com...INAL-email.pdf
Check it out. They are pretty cool.
A car that is "built" is a kit car.

Cars come from manufacturer, or restoration, or replication. It is more of a replication than anything else. An awesome one but still replication (kit). By definition at least.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old January 9th, 2012, 07:50 AM
Roverhound's Avatar
Roverhound
Status: Offline
Walter Dent
2000 D2
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Stuarts Draft, Virginia
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by DD90 View Post
A car that is "built" is a kit car.

Cars come from manufacturer, or restoration, or replication. It is more of a replication than anything else. An awesome one but still replication (kit). By definition at least.
A kit car consists of pieces supplied by a manufactorer. All of these are hand built.
By your definition a every car is a kit car.
Icon is the manufactorer.
__________________
We're not trying to freak out the normal man,
we're trying to out freak the normal man.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old January 9th, 2012, 02:44 PM
Suppatime's Avatar
Suppatime
Status: Offline
Drew Suppa
None (yet)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA; USA
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjf View Post
Someone should just ask icon or foose or whoever. I would think the icon is ver legal considering the pr that is behind it.
Icon is a few miles from me, and they are all very, very legal in CA, which is probably the strictest in the nation. They are considered "new" vehicles because they make the chassis.

As far as Chip Foose goes, my boss is friends with him (executive producer of the show) and owns a few of his creations... I can ask...
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old January 9th, 2012, 03:02 PM
rijosho's Avatar
rijosho
Status: Offline
Joshua
1995 Black ST - Rhinolined edition
Research Assistant/Eagle Eyes
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 16,557
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppatime View Post
They are considered "new" vehicles because they make the chassis.

So is one statement accurate and the other inaccurate then? I'm confused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikojo View Post
I think they are thinking of these as "restorations". The VIN plate from the original chassis is even affixed to the truck AND when these are registered they are registered as Toyo under the original VIN or Willy or whatever.
__________________
Quote:
I am talking purely from an aesthetics standpoint.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Defender Source > Classifieds > For Sale - Vehicles

Tags
97, fs

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Icon 4x4 97Ariesblu Misc. Chit-Chat 70 November 8th, 2011 07:17 AM
FS: ICON CJ3B "old school" mpodgorski The Flea Market 22 January 25th, 2011 04:14 PM
FS - 82 - Landcruiser - FJ40 - NC uzj100 For Sale - Vehicles 11 December 6th, 2007 01:56 AM
TLC Icon JBurt Misc. Chit-Chat 13 December 14th, 2005 09:22 PM
Richard Burns: 1971 - 2005 devinchi Misc. Chit-Chat 1 November 27th, 2005 10:21 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:30 AM.


Copyright