I think it comes down to how much of a car do you need? If the car was hit by a train and the rear was gone from the windshield frame back; but you could rebuild it with repro sheetmetal? Is that the same? It kind is a grey area.
__________________
Mike
I've had 60 cars....most of them Mustangs :-)
Hi again. No, it isn't and no, it isn't There are degrees of originality, and it is indeed a grey area concerning the question 'At what point is it no longer the same car?' , but, to remove the vin from an S code car and graft it onto another, less desirable car is clearly waaaaaay over on the wrong side of that line. If you ask yourself a couple of questions and answer them honestly to yourself, that will generally clear up any confusion. " Would I pay as much for this car as I would one with all original sheet metal?' and "Would I tell a potential buyer what had been done if they didn't ask?' or would I tone it down some with something like, "Well, it's had a little work done on it."? The honest answers to those questions will make it very clear what your opinion of this really is. Money has a way of tricking some people into thinking that they believe one thing when they actually believe something else entirely. How you figure out what you really believe is to look at how you act every time that belief has been put to the test.
What the original poster is talking about doing is illegal and, even more importantly, it is wrong.
I don't know if it really is wrong... it is not like it is a stolen car, he is just rebuilding the damaged S-code he owns with a donor car.
I fail to see how this is any different then this: http://www.jefflilly.com/Shop_Tour/B...nda/page2.html So what it is ok to sell a car that has had 99% of it replaced if it is the "original car" but if you build an S code using a 6 cylinder it is completely wrong and the future owners must be warned about it? I would tell any buyer that this car was built out a donor car if it were my car. But I just fail to see how it is different. If he had the whole "original" front clip and grafted a 6 cylinder to the back is that ok? Look at the car in the link, the 69 S code would be more original then that thing.
But how much do you want to bet the owner of that convertible would just say it was "fully restored". Everyone would agree and not even blink that the whole car has been replaced.
There are a ton of cars out there on the market that have been completely rebuilt from the ground up like that convertible. So does the owner have a moral right to tell the buyer that he cut the vin out of his own car on that convertible and had it welded to 99% replacement sheet metal? Is this fraud? Or is it ok because at least 1% of the car (ie the dash and firewall are "original"??
__________________
Mike
I've had 60 cars....most of them Mustangs :-)
I how it is different. If he had the whole "original" front clip and grafted a 6 cylinder to the back is that ok? Look at the car in the link, the 69 S code would be more original then that thing.
But how much do you want to bet the owner of that convertible would just say it was "fully restored". Everyone would agree and not even blink that the whole car has been replaced.
So does the owner have a moral right to tell the buyer that he cut the vin out of his own car on that convertible and had it welded to 99% replacement sheet metal? Is this fraud? Or is it ok because at least 1% of the car (ie the dash and firewall are "original"??
Hi again. Yes, the owner does have both a moral and a legal obligation to fully disclose this, and the courts have agreed repeatedly that this is fraud. Think of it this way. Let's say that you buy a Picasso at auction for Picasso money. You have the painting inspected and it turns out that the signature is indeed that of Picasso, but the rest of the painting was done by some guy in Reno a month before you bought it and he had grafted Picasso's signiture onto his painting. Are you ok with having paid Picasso money for a painting that isn't a Picasso? This is known as a re-body and is outright illegal in most states because they are real funny about altered VINs. It is morally wrong because what you would be selling is not what the person believes that they are buying. There are countless examples of people doing this sort of thing with cars, but, that does not create some sort easement that makes this be anything other than a bogus car. A lot of people doing it doesn't make it ok. If he does this, and then sells the car, the new owner discovers this and sues him, he will lose the suit. For sure. And, the penalty stroke is a heavy one. This also varies from state to state, but, in Texas, you pay back three times the amount that you sold the car for, along with getting stuck with the legal fees of both parties and court costs. Again, there are many cases that do fall into a grey area and are questionable, but this is not one of those cases. The original poster would be well advised not to do this and then sell the car to someone as an S code car, because it is not, and he would get pounded in court. For sure.
Hi again. Yes, the owner does have both a moral and a legal obligation to fully disclose this, and the courts have agreed repeatedly that this is fraud. Think of it this way. Let's say that you buy a Picasso at auction for Picasso money. You have the painting inspected and it turns out that the signature is indeed that of Picasso, but the rest of the painting was done by some guy in Reno a month before you bought it and he had grafted Picasso's signiture onto his painting. Are you ok with having paid Picasso money for a painting that isn't a Picasso? This is known as a re-body and is outright illegal in most states because they are real funny about altered VINs. It is morally wrong because what you would be selling is not what the person believes that they are buying. There are countless examples of people doing this sort of thing with cars, but, that does not create some sort easement that makes this be anything other than a bogus car. A lot of people doing it doesn't make it ok. If he does this, and then sells the car, the new owner discovers this and sues him, he will lose the suit. For sure. And, the penalty stroke is a heavy one. This also varies from state to state, but, in Texas, you pay back three times the amount that you sold the car for, along with getting stuck with the legal fees of both parties and court costs. Again, there are many cases that do fall into a grey area and are questionable, but this is not one of those cases. The original poster would be well advised not to do this and then sell the car to someone as an S code car, because it is not, and he would get pounded in court. For sure.
You misunderstood, I ment the seller of the mustang in the link. How is it any differnt if I own a 66 Mustang Converitble replace 99% of it and weld the old vin back to it? (I am not disagreeing with you, I am just saying that it is a grey area in the market) the 66 Mustang in the link is no more a 66 mustang A code then the 69 Mustang in question would be a 69 Mustang S code. Because in both cases the cars would end up being basicly brand new shells with the old vins attached to replacement sheetmetal. The law is very clear on this, but my point is, that the concept of original body, or "restoration" is getting fuzzy because people are now buying new bodies, or buying 99% new sheetmetal and cutting the whole car apart.
If you follow the letter of the law every shop that has ever changed a front inner fender on a Mustang should be fined and jailed. But the intent of the law is stop people from selling stolen cars, and to stop people from ripping each other off. My point in playing devils advocate is that there are cars out there being built with all new parts that are in reality rebodied just like this 69 would be. But the community seems to accept these as "rebuilds". If the 69 was built to 100% S code standards and all the numbers matched it would be hard to say it is fraud, now if the car had a 250 I6 in it with an S code Vin and suspension you could make a stronger cade. But unless it is defined how much of the car has to be there to start with to consider it a restoration or a rebody I think it is still a very grey area.
Now that issue put to rest many states do have laws on the books that make it having a VIN and Title without a car a crime. That would be this situation.
Here is the California Laws:
10802. Any person who knowingly alters, counterfeits, defaces,
destroys, disguises, falsifies, forges, obliterates, or removes
vehicle identification numbers, with the intent to misrepresent the
identity or prevent the identification of motor vehicles or motor
vehicle parts, for the purpose of sale, transfer, import, or export,
is guilty of a public offense and, upon conviction, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three
years, or by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or by up to one year
in the county jail, or by a fine of not more than one thousand
dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.
__________________
Mike
I've had 60 cars....most of them Mustangs :-)
Hi again. I certainly did not mean to imply that I thought that you would be involved in anything shaky, Mike, and I sure hope that you didn't take it that way.
My point is very simple. To take the VIN off of one car and graft it onto another car is not even close to the grey area of originality. That is a re-body. The A code 66 is a re-body, the brand new body kit with a real car's VIN is a re-body, and this S code convertible's VIN grafted onto another car is a re-body. It's a re-body every time that anyone does it. If a person sells a re-body as a real car, that is fraud, and that person is subject to civil action and criminal prosecution. A body shop can re-stamp a VIN on a panel that has been replaced as part of a repair, but, they can't cut the VIN out of one car, graft it onto another, and then try to sell that as a real car. Nobody is allowed to do that by law. There's nothing grey about that, and many, many people have been sued and prosecuted for this in every state in the country. You can't do that.
People do not like to conceed that a really special car can deteriorate past the point of no return, but, sadly, this is the case far too often. To preserve the memory that such a car used to exist is one thing, and is something that I think should be done when possible. It makes a fun car to ride around in, generates many interesting conversations of 'back in the day, they used to....' and is generally good for the preservation of the history of these cars. However, to take the VIN of that car and transfer it to an entirely different car and try to mis-represent this re-body as the real car is something else. And what that 'something else' is is criminal.
Veronica, you are talking like all I want to do is swap VINs, and that is not the case. There would be major stuff like the entire interior, suspension, complete drivetrain including motor, trans and rear end, fenders, doors, shock tower reinforcements, steering, front spindles, etc. Other parts would be replaced with NOS or aftermarket stuff. So really the majority of the car would be from the S code. If I were buying one I wouldn't care how much was rebuilt, restored, swapped out, whatever as long as it was done good (but that's just me). An "all original" car is just that. One that has never been restored. No sheetmetal replaced, no engine rebuilding, no new paint. Not very many of them left out there.
By the way, please don't compare a classic Mustang with some Picasso guy's stuff (just a joke, don't anyone get mad). If I had an old historic house on the National registry could I put a new foundation under it? Or would I just have to let it crumble? My point is, is it better to lose a great work of art or do what can be done to bring back it's beauty. I guess I would rather see a bunch of classic, restored Mustangs out there on the road (no matter how they were restored) than to wake up one morning to find none.
Like I said before, the DMV here just requires both titles so they know one car hasn't been stolen. I never planned on fixing this up and selling it for big money. I just wanted it for myself. If I was to ever sell it I would certainly disclose all work that was done to it.
The only reason I am trying to sell everything now is because my 21 year old step-son has been battling cancer for over a year and is now losing the battle. We have been paying for his medications and things which has put us in dept too far. Otherwise I would not sell these as I am a 69 Mustang fanatic. These are my babies but sometimes things come up that are more important than even a classic Mustang.
Hi again. Driveline and suspension stuff doesn't count as far as the DMV goes. It's the body of the car that has the VIN, and, if you take the VIN of this S code convertible and graft it onto another car, you will be subject to both civil and criminal prosecution. Whichever way you choose to go, do it with the understanding that you could end up in jail and losing money on the deal because of the lawsuit instead of making money.
With all of that having been said, I can certainly understand your motivation. I have two kids, and, to be perfectly honest, I can't think of anything that I would not do to save one of them. The best thing that you could do with that stuff is round up the Marti report, a couple of original magazine ads and pictures of 69 S code convertibles and put it on ebay as a display collection of historical value. Ebay doesn't allow the sale of lone VINs or bare titles because, as I might have mentioned, altering the VIN of a car is illegal. However, they will let it slip through as an historical memento. That way, someone else will be the one to go to jail.
No, it isn't and no, it isn't 
There are degrees of originality, and it is indeed a grey area concerning the question 'At what point is it no longer the same car?' , but, to remove the vin from an S code car and graft it onto another, less desirable car is clearly waaaaaay over on the wrong side of that line. If you ask yourself a couple of questions and answer them honestly to yourself, that will generally clear up any confusion. " Would I pay as much for this car as I would one with all original sheet metal?' and "Would I tell a potential buyer what had been done if they didn't ask?' or would I tone it down some with something like, "Well, it's had a little work done on it."? The honest answers to those questions will make it very clear what your opinion of this really is. Money has a way of tricking some people into thinking that they believe one thing when they actually believe something else entirely. How you figure out what you really believe is to look at how you act every time that belief has been put to the test. 
