The Supercar Registry

The Supercar Registry (https://www.yenko.net/forum/index.php)
-   Supercar/Musclecar Discussion (https://www.yenko.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=79)
-   -   Question On rebody? 1973 Z-28 (https://www.yenko.net/forum/showthread.php?t=107239)

Smokey 10-28-2009 06:51 AM

Re: Question On rebody? 1973 Z-28
 
Wow...and just think what happens in the street rod world!!! The feds could take 85% of the cars at the Street Rod Nats if they wanted to be pricks and do a sting.

njsteve 10-28-2009 06:56 AM

Re: Question On rebody? 1973 Z-28
 
Don't the home-made street rods usually get some type of state-issued VIN plate for registration purposes?

Bill Pritchard 10-28-2009 07:14 AM

Re: Question On rebody? 1973 Z-28
 
Since it appears you've decided against the project that's the original subject of this thread, this is probably a moot point, but I'll throw it out there anyway....

A 73 Z28 would not thave had a Hurst shifter or a space saver spare tire as original equipment, so the car may not be quite as original as you thought.

MultiMopars 10-28-2009 08:51 AM

Re: Question On rebody? 1973 Z-28
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know an AZ. ex state trooper that used to investigate stolen cars as well that thought something should be done about that situation as well, but the bottom line is, that unless there is a stolen car or parts involved, there is nothing illegal about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is still very much illegal, it is just not that often enforced if the car wasn't found to be stolen, as they have much more bigger fish to fry.

A lot of retired law enforcement car guys work for NICB (National Insurance Crime Bureau). One thing I forgot to mention is that when those rebodied cars show up at auction, the NICB guys get the VIN number info and plug them into their database. Imagine your surprise when you buy that rebodied $600K hemicuda and try to insure it and your insurance company declines coverage, and then every other insurance company you call after that also declines coverage as the car has been redflagged as a rebody in the insurance crime database. OUCH!

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't believe that.

Did you read my post on page one of this thread? The Federal law is quite clear on this. Now if the V.I.N. showed up as an earlier reported STOLEN car, it would be a different story and the car would be confiscated as stolen property. An insurance company has no legal right to refuse insurance on a rebodied car. The insurance companies SELL totaled cars to wreck rebuilders all the time who graft two totaled cars togather and use ONE V.I.N. as has been going on for decades.

Think about this. In 1971 you had a 1969 Chevelle that was in a front end collision. The adjuster allowed for a used front clip. Fast foward 1 year. This same car is hit in the rear. The adjuster allows for a used rear clip. now you have a car made up from TWO different cars for the original THIRD car in this senerio that is using the V.I.N. from the original car. Do you think they are denying insurance coverage for this car then or NOW?

njsteve 10-28-2009 03:33 PM

Re: Question On rebody? 1973 Z-28
 
Your example is perfectly legal as a repair, provided the VIN has not been removed from the original car (in the center).

NICB maintains records on people, driving records, motor vehicles, any past claims on them, especially fraudulent activity, etc. Anything that would affect the rights/remedies of an insurance company is added to the database and cross referenced by the VIN or biographical information. In other words, you can bet an insurance company would be interested if they are insuring a car for $600k that is worth only $150K due to VIN tampering/rebodying.

Did you read my response to your earlier post? I guess not. You have no actual experience with Federal law. I do. You can either believe what I tell you from my experience or not. I don't really care.

It's people who don't follow legal advice, that I make my living, dealing with.

I'm done. Anything more and I bill for my hours.

RichSchmidt 10-28-2009 04:20 PM

Re: Question On rebody? 1973 Z-28
 
Dont call it a rebody,and dont disclose it,if you want to do it,then do it right.Cut the right tulip(firewall extention)out of both cars,remove the last section of the firewall to the far right on both cars{the part that has the hidden VIN} by carefully drilling out every spot weld,and weld that section from the Z into the donor car,swap the tags,and forget it.Most of what is out there now is majority jap sheet metal with factory firewalls anyhow,so a rebody using a real GM body is more authentic then fixing the original since it will be correct warts and all.If neither car is stolen,you have nothing to loose sleep over.You should use as many parts of the original Z as possible including the front subframe if you are using a different year donor car sinc the 73 had different holes in the subframe and radiator support to mount the improved bumper hardware for the 73.There are also numbers Identifying the model on car in the floorpan over the rear support plate for the driveshaft tunnel,you might want to correct those numbers too.Remeber also that you shouldnt use a 1970 body for this rebody since the floorpan over the rear axle is slightly different.Go ahead and flame away,but his car will be more correct and of higher standards then most of the "restored" cars out there,and it will cost him half as much.

beater68427 10-28-2009 04:54 PM

Re: Question On rebody? 1973 Z-28
 
[ QUOTE ]
Since it appears you've decided against the project that's the original subject of this thread, this is probably a moot point, but I'll throw it out there anyway....

A 73 Z28 would not thave had a Hurst shifter or a space saver spare tire as original equipment, so the car may not be quite as original as you thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

1973 Camaro N65 Spare space saver unit cost $14.16 units sold 1314 https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...ns/burnout.gif

king_midas 10-28-2009 04:58 PM

Re: Question On rebody? 1973 Z-28
 
Had a post, felt bad about it, and deleted...

None of this really matters. Especially for a 36 y/o car that isn't really that special.

If the guy wants the car and wants to take all of the parts from one and bolt them onto the other one, just do it and keep records. If you have nothing to hide, there's nothing to worry about.

Take care gents.



resto4u 10-28-2009 08:04 PM

Re: Question On rebody? 1973 Z-28
 
There are cars out there with only original firewall pieces, copo camaro, yenko duece, ZL-1, yenko camaro, and on and on. Right or wrong, the guy can do what he wants.

MultiMopars 10-28-2009 08:42 PM

Re: Question On rebody? 1973 Z-28
 
[ QUOTE ]
Your example is perfectly legal as a repair, provided the VIN has not been removed from the original car (in the center).

NICB maintains records on people, driving records, motor vehicles, any past claims on them, especially fraudulent activity, etc. Anything that would affect the rights/remedies of an insurance company is added to the database and cross referenced by the VIN or biographical information. In other words, you can bet an insurance company would be interested if they are insuring a car for $600k that is worth only $150K due to VIN tampering/rebodying.
Did you read my response to your earlier post? I guess not. You have no actual experience with Federal law. I do. You can either believe what I tell you from my experience or not. I don't really care.

It's people who don't follow legal advice, that I make my living, dealing with.

I'm done. Anything more and I bill for my hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im response to all of this:

1. If you look at the areas of my post on page one that are bolded it clearly shows an allowance for removal and MOVING a V.I.N.

2. The B-J $600K rebody sale example shows that the bidders apparently didn't CARE that the car was rebodied and therefore by its sale proves that. Price guides for these old cars that lenders and insurance companies use for determining value are compiled from auction results and reporting old car dealers. The value of THIS car creates it's own comparible with it's sale at auction WITH full disclosure. There were multiple buyers (obviously) involved in the sales since it was an auction.

The whole point of this example is to show that the price of the car was NOT effected by the fact that it was a rebody. The car burned in a fore. The owner salvaged what they could. They bought another donor body and made one car of the remains of two. The same way that wreck rebuilders do from cars they purchase from insurance company sales.

3. Did you read the copy and paste from the Dynacorn FAQ section of their web site regarding the use of an existing V.I.N. plate for their replacement bodies? Do you think that maybe they had some pretty good legal advise on this issue?

4. Yes, I read yours and all others in this thread word for word. You don't know me or what my experience is so let me tell you. I spent 30 years in the auto business. I have seen every type of title senario there is. It was one of my jobs to watch for cars being traded that had problems e.g. stolen cars, V.I.N. tampering, etc. I was involved in the leader ads that were run in print, radio, and TV. I have had MANY conversations with the State's attorney general about what is legal and what is not. I personally had a 1966 Corvette that was stolen and recovered that the V.I.N. tag was removed and destroyed by the theives during the time it was missing. I was able to LEGALLY have an accurate reproduction V.I.N. plate made and re-installed on the car. So, I am familiar with these matters from a very professional, personal, and legal standpoint.

4. I know as an attorney it is your nature and job to argue your point, look for ways to twist and portray the law to the out come you are looking for. An attorney's OPNINON is just that, and the same for an opposing attorney on the other side of a case. I guess you can consider ME the other attorney in this case. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/smile.gif It is a JUDGE'S job to listen to both sides and review the existing law and case law of other cases and make a decision based on the facts. It is pretty easy to see that the V.I.N. tampering law was created to thwart auto theives and chop shops and not effect restorers, repairers, and wreck rebuilders. The Federal law makers apparently thought enough about these law abidding citizens to write the exceptions to the law as spelled out on my post on page one to protect those people.

5. Maybe I should be the one sending a bill for legal advise. Oh, wait, that would be illegal for praticing law without a license. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...ns/naughty.gif

Seriously, as I stated at the top of my opening post, I am not trying to influence you or anyone else with this information, but rather inform people as to what the law says. It is very clear to me that the INTENT of the law was to thwart CRIMINALS not the old car hobby. When it is all said and done the vlaues of these rebodied cars will seek their own value. The B-J Cuda example is just that, an example to the hobby of how some buyers don't consider it a problem. I have a long post saved regarding the perpetual rebody/restoration arguement that shows both sides of it, if you or anyone else is interested I can post it here.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.


O Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.