Author Topic: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.  (Read 12776 times)

HawkX66

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2017, 12:03:11 PM »
Going through the process to tag a "kit" build process is a pain in a lot of states. Especially Mass. You would have to have receipts for every last piece of the build and take it to an inspection station where you run the risk of getting it seized if the inspector doesn't like something. I think in a lot of cases it's just the easy thing to do for someone building. "Hey, I already have a title for this VIN. Why should I give more money to the state and spend a bunch of time to have the state apply a new #?"
Haven't done it myself and no plans to. Just saying...
Dave
69 SS396 X66 L34 M21 BS
Z23 711 U17 Hugger Orange
Semper Fi!

69Z28-RS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5778
  • owner since 4-Apr-1976
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2017, 03:17:14 PM »
A Dynacorn body is Licensed by GM so it is a replacement body part. I've worked in the collision industry and transferring a VIN to a new cab was not unusual and perfectly legal. Procedures vary by state so one must follow them.

So what is the process for your state that you 'follow' .. when moving a VIN from a Camaro body to a totally new (Dynacorn) body?

IMO, this process some of you are espousing *totally* obscures/obliterates the purpose and meaning of a VIN!   *shaking my head*.  I would LOVE to see an official statement from a GM high level representative (or GM lawyer) that approves of this!  (but it would be doomsday for our hobby)...  :(
09C 69Z28-RS, 72 B 720 cowl console rosewood tint
69 Corvette, '60 Corvette, '72 Corvette
90 ZR1 red/red #246, 90 ZR1 white/gray #2466
72 El Camino, '55-'56-'57 Nomads, '55-'57 B/A Sedan

Sauron327

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1365
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2017, 03:42:35 PM »
So what is the process for your state that you 'follow' .. when moving a VIN from a Camaro body to a totally new (Dynacorn) body?

IMO, this process some of you are espousing *totally* obscures/obliterates the purpose and meaning of a VIN!   *shaking my head*.  I would LOVE to see an official statement from a GM high level representative (or GM lawyer) that approves of this!  (but it would be doomsday for our hobby)...  :(

I never transferred a VIN to a Dcorn body so I had no reason to check. Dcorn bodies are not plug and play as many think, so one is usually better off repairing the original shell. Anyone who does restorations for a living knows how many modifications are required on reproduction panels. Bodies are no different. It is easy to just buy a completed lower chassis from Muscle Car Metal and simply put your top half on provided it is solid.

Shops buy new cabs for trucks and transfer VINs. Not sure what the big deal is. No sense in junking a $60K truck when it needs a simple cab swap.


HawkX66

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2017, 03:50:02 PM »
A Dynacorn body is Licensed by GM so it is a replacement body part. I've worked in the collision industry and transferring a VIN to a new cab was not unusual and perfectly legal. Procedures vary by state so one must follow them.

So what is the process for your state that you 'follow' .. when moving a VIN from a Camaro body to a totally new (Dynacorn) body?

IMO, this process some of you are espousing *totally* obscures/obliterates the purpose and meaning of a VIN!   *shaking my head*.  I would LOVE to see an official statement from a GM high level representative (or GM lawyer) that approves of this!  (but it would be doomsday for our hobby)...  :(
I know it varies from state to state and has been discussed at length, but I think to transfer a VIN at a body shop just requires documenting it. I don't think they need to report to anyone.
As far as doomsday etc., I can't agree. I don't live and die by what some lawyer's opinion is and I sure don't live by what some politician decides that has no idea what he's talking about and probably has never picked up a wrench. I don't like the nanny state mentality. I'm not saying that's you Gary, but it's a slippery slope.
There's always going to be fraud in everything that has value attached to it. You just have to be better at completing your due diligence.
Dave
69 SS396 X66 L34 M21 BS
Z23 711 U17 Hugger Orange
Semper Fi!

Sauron327

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1365
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2017, 06:24:31 PM »
Another example of many is a body tech stated the DMV rep came to the shop and handed him the rivets, witnessed the swap and then signed off on it.

69Z28-RS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5778
  • owner since 4-Apr-1976
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2017, 12:39:55 AM »
you guys seem to be saying that the old 'Repair' OR Replace..   is all the same now..  that replacement is the same as Repair.  I will never go along with that personally.

When a manufacturer puts his 'plate' on his product, that manufacturer is saying to the customer base.. 'I built this...  I'm proud of it..  and I want everyone to know who built it'....    That has always been the way I've thought of it, and what I believe that GM USED to believe about their products...

If your philosophies became 'common practice', then the manufacturer's plate would mean NOTHING!   and that would be a sad day in the US...
09C 69Z28-RS, 72 B 720 cowl console rosewood tint
69 Corvette, '60 Corvette, '72 Corvette
90 ZR1 red/red #246, 90 ZR1 white/gray #2466
72 El Camino, '55-'56-'57 Nomads, '55-'57 B/A Sedan

Sauron327

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1365
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2017, 01:36:55 AM »
you guys seem to be saying that the old 'Repair' OR Replace..   is all the same now..  that replacement is the same as Repair.  I will never go along with that personally.

When a manufacturer puts his 'plate' on his product, that manufacturer is saying to the customer base.. 'I built this...  I'm proud of it..  and I want everyone to know who built it'....    That has always been the way I've thought of it, and what I believe that GM USED to believe about their products...

If your philosophies became 'common practice', then the manufacturer's plate would mean NOTHING!   and that would be a sad day in the US...

It is common practice today, as you can buy OEM parts in collision. If you had industry experience you would know this. Your new car repair option also offers aftermarket parts when involved in a hit.

Most classics today with original drivetrains are built with some aftermarket sheetmetal or other parts and they command very good money if well done. Those that do like them can buy only 100% survivors and think the others that can be rebuilt should be destroyed. The well known, rebuilt Hemi Cuda, which is worth far more than any 69 Z is not being tossed out of the owner's corral. Other hand built cars fall into the same category; there were no factory replacement parts. Camaros do not sit as high on the food chain as some owners may think.

69Z28-RS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5778
  • owner since 4-Apr-1976
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2017, 03:25:41 AM »
Sauron,

I'm not referring to just Camaros, OR just cars..  I'm referring to everything that carries a manufacturer's plate (which is almost every thing we buy).

You seem to be defending 'repair parts' being aftermarket.  I'm not a fan of most aftermarket  parts/items, BUT.. you're missing my point... and that is..  REPLACEMENT of an entire entity (that carries a manufacturer's plate) IS NOT repair.  it is REPLACEMENT, and putting the original items mfg's plate on it is what I'm dissing here...

If the replacement parts aren't *crap*, they will have their own manufacturer's mark/plate on them, and NOT try fooling people by applying, or encouraging others to apply, an original maker's plate.   As I said originally, for anyone replacing the ENTIRE BODY (and not repairing one) but then move the mfg plate to the 'bastard' body, then their only purpose can be fraud...
09C 69Z28-RS, 72 B 720 cowl console rosewood tint
69 Corvette, '60 Corvette, '72 Corvette
90 ZR1 red/red #246, 90 ZR1 white/gray #2466
72 El Camino, '55-'56-'57 Nomads, '55-'57 B/A Sedan

ZLP955

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2186
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2017, 08:48:13 AM »

There will always be differing opinions on this subject in the hobby.....
Tim in Australia.
1969 04A Van Nuys Z/28. Cortez Silver, Dark Blue interior, VE3, Z21, Z23, D55/U17, D80, flat hood.
Sold at Clippinger Chevrolet in Covina, CA.
AHRA Formula Stock at Lions Dragstrip, NHRA E/MP at Pomona Raceway

HawkX66

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2017, 11:46:42 AM »
There will always be differing opinions on this subject in the hobby.....
Nothing wrong with discussing those differing opinions though...
Dave
69 SS396 X66 L34 M21 BS
Z23 711 U17 Hugger Orange
Semper Fi!

cook_dw

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3986
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #25 on: March 23, 2017, 12:12:18 PM »

BSMIT59

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #26 on: March 23, 2017, 12:26:42 PM »
And as grown adults we should respect all of those opinions even when we disagree with them. I personally believe that Gary is making a very good point on the POTENTIAL for someone to defraud an individual on the purchase of something that it is not. Taking for example most of you on here will whole - heartedly agree taking a "plain Jane" and slapping Z-28 badging on it has been attempted too many times to count, and many of those efforts were done to defraud to potential buyer into believing that they were getting something that was not really what the badging showed. And even now the current wave of reproduction "Original Window Sticker and POP".  Long story short these cars are getting more scarce by the day and if you are lucky enough to own one, you should cherish it for what it is and means to you personally and not give 2 hoots about anyone's opinion!!!  All I got to say about that right now.
Barry     Old guy but still learning.....
Unrestored 67 barn find
67 SS 350 in process  ( in paint booth now)
Looking for 7N243673 to reunite V0320MO block and crank

HawkX66

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2017, 01:51:52 PM »
you guys seem to be saying that the old 'Repair' OR Replace..   is all the same now..  that replacement is the same as Repair.  I will never go along with that personally.

When a manufacturer puts his 'plate' on his product, that manufacturer is saying to the customer base.. 'I built this...  I'm proud of it..  and I want everyone to know who built it'....    That has always been the way I've thought of it, and what I believe that GM USED to believe about their products...

If your philosophies became 'common practice', then the manufacturer's plate would mean NOTHING!   and that would be a sad day in the US...
I'm not saying repair or replace is the same thing, but where is the line drawn? I think that ends up being the question. You repair a fender when you patch it. You've replaced it when you put a full new fender on. I think we can agree that a Dynacorn etc is a replacement, but replacing a fender or a quarter is a repair.
I've seen plenty of guys replace a floor, 1/4s, roof, trunk, & firewall. Repair or replacement? In my opinion, as long as the skeletal structure that all the parts are welded to remains, it's a repair. A major repair, but a repair. I admit, that's a pretty grey area though. I just can't run my life around thieves and con artists etc. I just do my best to stay knowledgeable enough to not get taken by them, though it's happened a time or two. It goes right along with the 2nd Amendment. People want to create a ton of laws impeding on the 2A all because of small population percentage of criminals. Creating a new law won't change a thing. Only law abiding citizens obey the law.
Dave
69 SS396 X66 L34 M21 BS
Z23 711 U17 Hugger Orange
Semper Fi!

ZLP955

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2186
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2017, 09:31:28 PM »
Nothing wrong with discussing those differing opinions though...
Agreed, but re-stating the same opinion again and again isn't really a discussion, it's trying to win an argument. Express viewpoint and move on.
And BTW this isn't aimed at anyone in particular.
Tim in Australia.
1969 04A Van Nuys Z/28. Cortez Silver, Dark Blue interior, VE3, Z21, Z23, D55/U17, D80, flat hood.
Sold at Clippinger Chevrolet in Covina, CA.
AHRA Formula Stock at Lions Dragstrip, NHRA E/MP at Pomona Raceway

Mark

  • CRG Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1089
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #29 on: March 24, 2017, 12:29:25 AM »
Technically the dynacorn body is a repair part.  It was never part of a GM manufactured vehicle and never had a VIN of its own.  It is a replacement for a failed component, either thru rust or damage.  It is a very fine line but legally its no different than a replacement fender in the grand scheme of things.  It is totally illegal to swap a VIN from one GM manufactured body that had a VIN assigned for your damaged GM manufactured body because both were originally part of a complete vehicle built by GM in compliance with the regulations of the day.  Not saying it is right or wrong, just that it can be done without going to jail.  Does it affect the value of said repaired vehicle when your done? You bet it does and it should be disclosed but probably isn't most times.
Mark C.
1969 Indy Pace Car
350/300HP RPO Z11