Author Topic: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.  (Read 4596 times)

Mike S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2079
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #30 on: March 24, 2017, 12:52:36 AM »
 Ya know....after reading these replies and realizing how far changes can be done before crossing that gray area brought to mind how this practice exists in other areas. Where I live, if a builder wants to put a new structure on property that has an existing structure, if they tear down the structure but leave up only one original wall, the the new replacement structure is considered a 'restoration'. This prevents the need for filing for additional permits, paperwork and variances that a totally new building would require. The same when I had my in-ground pool 'restored' last year. I left one original part of the support structure intact and an entire new pool was built around it and I avoided having to file for permits and variances (the pool was grandfathered in the 80's when local zoning changed). This work too was considered a 'restoration'. If I had removed the entire structure then it would be considered new construction, so leaving an original part intact made it a 'restoration'. Sound familiar?

Mike
67 LOS SS/RS L35 Hardtop - Original w/UOIT
67 NOR SS/RS L35 Convertible - Restored

camaronut

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #31 on: March 24, 2017, 02:06:25 AM »
Even-though my better sense tells me different, I've gotta open my mouth on this one.....so here we go.

I have a friend who has a 69 Z, all numbers match bleh bleh bleh........

When he bought the car, it was virtually a pretzel. There wasn't a straight panel anywhere on this car. Everything was either bent or twisted....even the firewall and dash were bent like a "V".  The car was involved in a unfair meeting with a huge tree on the drivers-side - inward.  Don't ask about the driver....it wasn't good.

He asked me and a few of us Camaro guys, who know the cars and what it takes to restore them.  We told him to walk away, unless you thinking of doing a rebody.  Nope.....he was going to save this car.  We knew he was in trouble...but he wouldn't listen.

Well, 3 body shops and $60K later, he has a body that is still not right, nothing lines up. For example we tried installing the rear window.  No luck.  The sill that the window rests against was about 1/2" off all around the perimeter.  I never saw a grown man cry over a restoration...but he has finally called it quits and now has nothing to show for $60K.  Every panel on this car was replaced with either Dynacorn or AMD ( I know....not a good idea) metal.  This car is a confabulation of new metal.  The only thing original is the firewall.

He now admits that he should have walked away, and kept looking.  Thankfully he has a VERY understanding wife.

So now, he's saving up the money to buy a full body kit and hopefully get things rolling again on his restoration (which is now a replacement).

I get the reason why he wanted to save this car.  He wanted to do the right thing, but got stung badly by restorations shops that had no clue.

Now, I'm not advocating using these Dynacorn bodies (I'm not a big fan of it - it's an option), but TO ME, you have to draw the line between what is / isn't sensible.



abiddle

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
  • 1969 Camaro SS 350 - trim 719 52 52
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #32 on: March 24, 2017, 12:31:39 PM »
This Ad wasn't an attempt to repair or replace a specific car's body using the original VIN, this isn't an example of bringing a specific VIN back to life by rebodying it.

This is after-the-fact request for a VIN and title. "Need vin and title for 1969 Camaro"

I can see having a specfic VIN and attempting to rebuild that camaro, even when everything needs to be replaced. But this is the reverse of that situation. I agree and understand the first, I don't agree with the this.

lynnbilodeau

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #33 on: March 30, 2017, 12:15:06 PM »
This Ad wasn't an attempt to repair or replace a specific car's body using the original VIN, this isn't an example of bringing a specific VIN back to life by rebodying it.

This is after-the-fact request for a VIN and title. "Need vin and title for 1969 Camaro"

I can see having a specfic VIN and attempting to rebuild that camaro, even when everything needs to be replaced. But this is the reverse of that situation. I agree and understand the first, I don't agree with the this.

You are correct.   Selling a title and vin plate from a destroyed car is illegal.

The other scenarios vary by state.  You can build a dynacorn bodied car in Oklahoma, but it gets a state issued vin.


bcmiller

  • CRG Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
    • View Profile
Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.
« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2017, 06:02:38 PM »
Quote
You are correct.   Selling a title and vin plate from a destroyed car is illegal.

The other scenarios vary by state.  You can build a dynacorn bodied car in Oklahoma, but it gets a state issued vin.

I wish there was a national policy on this, following Oklahoma's lead.
Bryon / 1968 Camaro SS 396 - now 468 ci, M21, 12 bolt
Looking for 68 Camaro with body number NOR 181016