Thoughts on a 440 'Cuda

[camarojoe]

At least the seller is open and upfront about what it is...I'll give him credit for that.

[Stefano]

That is what I was thinking?

[njsteve]

...Or he has no idea that he just confessed to a felony in front of 20,000,000 people. Oh, wait I thought I was watching the congressional steroid hearings again....

[mrhp]

Sounds pretty serious. For my education, at what point is the line crossed? I've seen some restored cars where every body panel was replaced due to rust or accidents, etc. Or cars where the frame was rotted or bent so it was replaced. I remember replacing the blue GM vin tag on the door of my '72 T/A with a repro & being advised that typing the vin # onto it was illegal!!!

[Born30YrsLate]

...a guy I know locally has survivor car like this except it is all green...a pretty rocking car...he hasn't had it out in years...

[tom406]

I know that car. I had my first dealership job in Mpls in the summer of '93, and that car was stored upstairs. It was very nice then. I talked to the owner at the time. IIRC, it had another of these "coveted now, not then" stories. It had supposedly sat on the dealer's lot until 1971, until they finally got an older guy to buy it to tow his boat. If he backed said boat in and out of water, plus a few Minnesota salted winters, it probably did need a bit of work.

I also remember that in the post price crash era of '93, he couldn't get $25K (or was it $20K?) for the car with a fresh restoration. He ended up trading it off to an exotic car broker.

The restorer had many early Cudas, and they weren't expensive at the time, so I doubt there is any ownership history issues here with the M-code car or the Texas car.

NJSteve, while I can appreciate your perspective, isn't every E-body that has had the dashboard replaced (gotta pop that VIN and grind those rivets) or every early Mustang that was hit in the front technically afoul of the law as well? (for reference, Mustangs had the VINs on the tops of the inner fender aprons, often replaced with ones from other cars when repaired. Many have been hit, and those front bumpers don't bump, they're just trim pieces ).

I like the car. I still think its worth owning. I know he had a complete but rusty M-code Cuda when he started, and had a nice restored one when he was done.

[mc25t190]

Don't buy a car like this and you won't find yourself defending it every time you are accused of owning a rebody. Only buy it if you plan to drive it, keep it, don't show it, and you won't have to explain it.This is one you drive it like you stole it every time you take the wheel, but, listen to these guys and don't buy it.

[njsteve]

[ QUOTE ]
NJSteve, while I can appreciate your perspective, isn't every E-body that has had the dashboard replaced (gotta pop that VIN and grind those rivets) or every early Mustang that was hit in the front technically afoul of the law as well? (for reference, Mustangs had the VINs on the tops of the inner fender aprons, often replaced with ones from other cars when repaired. Many have been hit, and those front bumpers don't bump, they're just trim pieces ).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK here we go again.

Taking the VIN tag off a Chrysler E-body, fixing the dash pad and replacing it ON THE VERY SAME CAR is entirely legal.

Taking the VIN off a Ford Mustang inner fender, repairing or replacing the inner fender and the reinstalling the same VIN tag ON THE VERY SAME CAR is entirely legal.

Taking the VIN tag off a 69 Camaro, replacing the commonly rusted dash panel and replacing it ON THE VERY SAME CAR is entirely legal.

Are we all seeing a common theme here?

Taking the cowl tag off a GM product, altering it to change codes, and putting it back on the same vehicle is not a criminal act (except in Oklahoma). Taking the GM cowl tag and putting it on another car it did not originally come on is also not a crime (except in Oklahoma) but in certain circumstances it can be considered an act of fraud and/or misrepresentation which could lead to a lawsuit in civil (not criminal) court for monetary damages.

Replacing a duplicate blue conformance decal back on the car it came from originally is entirely legal. A conformance decal is just that, it was a decal placed on the car by the manufacturer notifying all observers that the car conformed to all safety and emissions regulations as of the date of its manufacture. It is not a VIN tag and is not treated as such under any laws. For example, you could never register a car simply based on that decal being on a door and no other VIN plates on the car.


Taking the VIN or a section of metal that contains a confidential VIN and placing it on a car THAT IT NEVER CAME ON from the factory IS A FELONY (a really bad criminal violation = 5 years under the Federal laws). Are we all seeing the distinction here? It is the act of placing it on another body that is the illegal act. There is no "restoration exception" under the law.


That Barracuda is forever tainted and depending upon the fickle mood of any law enforcement officer who comes across it (or who happens to have seen the ebay auction) the car can be subject to permanent seizure as VIN altered vehicles are considered contraband under most VIN laws and can never be sold or auctioned off. They usually get crushed unless the original body VIN can be determined.

The proper, and legal (and extremely expensive) way to restore a car like that would be by cutting all of the rusted panels off it and replacing them, piece by piece, with the panels from a donor car. Yeah that's pretty crazy labor but it passes the test of whether the VIN section/panel was removed from the original car and then welded onto another one. Simply cutting that firewall out and welding it onto an intact donor body fails the test and makes the car a VIN swap violation.

This is neither my perspective, nor my opinion, nor my personal feeling. THAT IS THE STATE OF THE LAW UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTES AND EVERY STATE STATUTE RELATING TO VIN FRAUD.

If you dont like the state of the law, then contact your local congressman (when he isn't fawning over steroid infected pro-ballers or trying to solicit illicit toilet companionship) and see if he can revise the law to allow a rebody restoration exception to the law.

(By the way, this is basically the same schpeil I spew out every time this subject comes up. If my ranting saves someone from getting in trouble with the local or Uncle Sam's gendarmes, or saves them from losing six-figures on a bogus car and having to sue to get their money back, I have done my public service for the day.)