sigtauenus
Active Member
"John Del" said:
Like I said previously, this has been debated many times.
-
Hello there guest and Welcome to The #1 Classic Mustang forum!
To gain full access you must Register. Registration is free and it takes only a few moments to complete.
Already a member? Login here then!
News story....
- Thread starter daveSanborn
- Start date
Like I said previously, this has been debated many times.
Sluggo
Active Member
"John Del" said:
That's where the problems start. If you issue a new vin to the car that makes it have to comply to the standards in place in the year built ...no? Wonder how kit car guys get around this......
AzPete
Well-Known Member
A local club member just traded (even) a '68 Fastback (so-so) for a complete (sweet) Factory Five Cobra big block. It came from Ga. I believe. I asked what it was registered as and he said it was listed as a 1965 FF5 Cobra.......built recently but still on the books as a 1965.
sigtauenus
Active Member
"John Del" said:
Going back to this quote, just how far down the rabbit hole do we go?
Here is the rules in my state...
http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/vehicles/reconstructed.asp
Technically, since my car has an entire rear clip (Dynacorn quarters, frame rails, trunk floor, taillight panel, etc), OR the fact that my car has an engine from another car, OR the fact that my car has a transmission from another car, OR the fact that my car has a rear axle from another car. Actually, I'm trying to think of a single part I've put back on the car that is original to it. The glove box door comes to mind, as does the instrument cluster and the rear window. I'm sure if I thought harder I might come up with some more parts but very few remain.
Technically speaking, I should have applied for a reconstructed title. I bet using the strict application of the law, most of us here are in the same boat.
So while we sit here and talk the finer points of the legalities of VIN swapping, we are effectively no different than the guy on the highway with cruise control set at 80 in a 55 cussing at the guy doing 85 as he gets passed.
Going back to what was said earlier and my own conversations with the VA DMV, I could legally use a Dynacorn body as a replacement part, transfer the VIN, and have it inspected and provide proof of ownership of all the parts as required, and as long as the reconstructed vehicle does not differ significantly from the vehicle that matched the VIN, I can still use the VIN I have and not have one assigned. Granted doing so would require a reconstructed title, but it would be legal.
AzPete
Well-Known Member
Hey now, everything on my car is original.....johnpro said so....... :lol
A
Anonymous
Guest
"AzPete" said:
Ahhhh ha ha ha ha , you've been had.
"sigtauenus" said:
Using your citation, this stood out:
NOTE: Vehicles such as reconstructed or specially constructed motor vehicles may have existing vehicle identification numbers (VINs) that are no longer appropriate because the vehicle has been fundamentally altered to be an entirely different vehicle for titling purposes. In order to title these types of vehicles, DMV will assign vehicle identification numbers.
I concede that, for laziness' sake, I didn't read the whole statute, but a Mustang with a Dynacorn body seems to fit the strict definition of "fundamentally altered". Again, I don't see the problem with just having the DMV assign a title to an otherwise legally rebodied car.
John
"Sluggo" said:
I'm not sure, but I don't think that's the case in most states. If the DMV issues a new VIN, the car will remain for legal and titling purposes the same year as manufactured, and will only need to comply with the same rules and standards as other cars of the same vintage with original VINs.
John
tarafied1
Well-Known Member
My car doesn't have a VIN on it anywhere! The entire front clip, frame rails and all, is new. The drivers door is from another Mustang so I took off the tag. Floors, quarters, trunk, tail panel, wheel tubs, rear frame rails, etc, etc are all new or cut from another Mustang. Most of the rest of the body is fiberglass. The roof, cowl, dash, rocker panels and passenger door are about the only original parts of the car. The entire drive-train is different as well.
When I had my car inspected, all they looked at was the "buck" tag which I saved and the tag for the door (which was not even on the car). My car could have had a Dynacorn body and passed inspection with just those two items (which again I emphasize, where not on the car).
AzPete
Well-Known Member
Do they even know what a car is in Kentucky.....or a VIN........ :lol :lol :lol
tarafied1
Well-Known Member
They build the Corvette in Kentucky so probably not!"AzPete" said:
DougG69
Member
"tarafied1" said:
Hell, Indiana doesn't even require a safety inspection... or emissions testing
SELLERSRODSHOP
Well-Known Member
IMHO, if the real truth came out, it will all boil down to some jealous bastard around the corner who has his nose out of joint because CR is getting "X" amt of $$ more than he is for their cars or their business is better than his. all you have to do is make accusations & if the gov't doesn't think they are getting their fair share in taxes & fees, the storm brews. add to the fact that most of the gov't people (DA) who stick their noses into it are dumber than a bag of hammers when it comes to cars but want to throw their authority around, it gets messy quick.
if all turns out good & no wrongdoing is found, i hope jason finds out who is behind it & files a personal lawsuit for all the costs & damages & hits em hard in the wallet.
if all turns out good & no wrongdoing is found, i hope jason finds out who is behind it & files a personal lawsuit for all the costs & damages & hits em hard in the wallet.
apollard
Active Member
"Sluggo" said:
I checked into a kit car build once. It's been probably 10 years, but here's what I remember:
The answer is yes and no- the state laws vary. Some consider it to be new, most give it the year of the platform you build from (miata, etc). The reason most give it the year of the 'original' platform car is the federal laws.
Under fed law, there is a low volume exemption for most safety regs (like frontal crash ratings). However, there is no exemption from emissions regs IIRC. Some states care about this (ie, for emissions testing), some don't. So, if you build a cobra replicar from a fox body drivetrain, many states will title it as say a 1988 Cobra. It then has to pass 1988 emission inspection.
This may have changed somewhat, but it's what I was facing back then.
daveSanborn
Active Member
"John Del" said:
and....
Misinformation. Sorry John to be quoting your posts specifically, but your comments are very similar to those of the misinformed SAAC crowd. Let's look closely at the excerpt from the VA law again......
NOTE: Vehicles such as reconstructed or specially constructed motor vehicles may have existing vehicle identification numbers (VINs) that are no longer appropriate because the vehicle has been fundamentally altered to be an entirely different vehicle for titling purposes. In order to title these types of vehicles, DMV will assign vehicle identification numbers.
The above statement applies to reconstructed or specially constructed motor vehicles. Reading earlier in the linked article we learn that VA has three classifications: reconstructed, specially constructed and replica. Your above quote does not apply to replica vehicles.
A replica vehicle is any vehicle not fully constructed by a licensed manufacturer, but either constructed or assembled from components. Such components may be from a single vehicle, multiple vehicles, a kit, parts, or fabricated components. The kit may be made up of major components, a full body, or a full chassis, or a combination of these parts. The vehicle must resemble a vehicle of distinctive name, line-make, model, or type as produced by a licensed manufacturer or manufacturer no longer in business and is not a reconstructed or specially constructed vehicle.
and reading a little further....
A replica vehicle built on the chassis from another vehicle may use the VIN from the existing chassis, as long as the new vehicle is a replica of the vehicle from which the chassis came.
From these statements the only argument left in Virginia is whether or not an Eleanor is a "replica" of an original Ford/Shelby Mustang. Stating that it is "not" is being on the losing side of the argument.
66gt350
Active Member
"AzPete" said:
You're right...they are original. But the question is: Original to what car?
apollard
Active Member
:lol :lol :10"66gt350" said:
"daveSanborn" said:
No problem Dave. Can't have a debate unless we know to whom our comments are directed.
"daveSanborn" said:
Yes, because I was not responding to replica vehicles. I was replying to this:
Classic Recreations is under investigation for VIN plate swapping — i.e. taking the Vehicle Identification Number off of a junked car and attaching it to whatever you like — by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigations (OSBI). Though no charges have yet been filed, cars have been seized over what the OSBI is calling an ongoing investigation.
....which was the purpose of the thread.
"daveSanborn [i" said:
Well, I'll comment on replica vehicles and the quoted statute as long as it's been brought up. It seems to me that what the statute is saying is that if you had the chassis to, say, a 1929 Cord, you could build another 1929 Cord on the chassis as long as that chassis has a clean VIN. If you have a unibody to a Mustang with an original VIN, you could build a replica of a Mustang on the unibody (not really practical for a unibody car).
"daveSanborn " said:
I don't think Classic Restorations got in trouble for building an Eleanor or Shelby replica on a legitimate VIN'd Mustang body, but attaching VINs for other Mustangs on their replicas.
John