[micojj]

Hello everyone. I have a title and all serial numbers (VIN, door tag, frame rail) for a 1969 Mustang GT convertible with deluxe interior, 390 V-8 w/ 4 speed manual transmission, Candy apple red. There is NO CAR! The car was a complete loss and I picked these items up quite a while ago. Anybody have an idea of what they are worth? It all came with a coupe that a guy had cut down and was going to use as a donor. I picked up a 6 banger conv. I was going to use as a donor instead.

My step-son has had alot of medical issues and I am forced to sell my projects, but need an idea of what to ask.

Thanks

 

[19coupe66]

if you are asking the value of a car with a switched vin, then I would say nothing, as it is not legal to swap vin's from car to car.

 

[Veronica]

Hello. They're worth about 5 years and a fine not to exceed 100k. :gringreen

 

[STERLING351]

But if you do a good job and dont get caught the look it up on line for prices because i dont think we should aid you in a fraud

 

[micojj]

I don't think it is a fraud if I have the titles to both cars and use them to make one car. All the DMV asked is to see both titles.

 

[micojj]

I was under the impression that a person could take two cars and make one out of them, as long as you had the title to both. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I did (long ago) use some parts off a car on another and the DMV just asked to see both titles (they were extensive parts - but not on a Mustang). I have the title to both of the convertibles.

I'll have to check with the DMV. If it is illegal, I won't mess with it.

 

[Jay H 237]

Yes, a person could legally make one good car out of two cars. The thing is you have to use the VIN of the car that you use the shell of to build on.

The problem is if you put those S code tags/VIN on that T or L code convert body you have now made that car (body) something it never was, thats where the fraud part comes in.


The tags and VIN you have are cool momentos, great for displaying. I saved the buck tag from my 68 Metuchen parts car.

 

[Veronica]

I was under the impression that a person could take two cars and make one out of them, as long as you had the title to both. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I did (long ago) use some parts off a car on another and the DMV just asked to see both titles (they were extensive parts - but not on a Mustang). I have the title to both of the convertibles.

I'll have to check with the DMV. If it is illegal, I won't mess with it.

Hi again. A person can take parts from two cars to make one, but, that isn't what you would be doing. What you are talking about doing is taking one car with a low market value and altering the vin so that it appears to be a car with a high market value. You would be removing the vin from the low end car and replacing it with the vin of the high end car. Ask the DMV how they feel about an altered vin.

 

[67ragtopStang]

I saw this car on a Mustang/Shelby Restoration shop website. This '69 GT350 Convertible is scheduled to be restored. It's hard to tell it was a Mustang at all. I wonder how they will do it..... Maybe they will tout the original bolt from a fender when they sell it!

 

[Veronica]

Hi again. I'm pretty sure that SAAC has been notified of this car and Mr. Liska will make the appropriate notations in the upcoming registry. :gringreen

 

[Calponycarsmike]

I don't know, I mean what really is original any more?

You have "restorations" where they cut the entire car apart and built it like a new car. I think that based on some of the definitions of fraud that are being listed here many cars that people would love to own would be frauds.

So if he had this 390 car and he cut it into a million pieces, ordered a ton of sheet metal from Taiwan and stitched it back together. That would be ok. But if he takes a solid donor car, cuts both into a million pieces and welds it all together, then that is not ok??? I have seen Boss cars that had the roof, floor, doors, quarters, fenders, dash, inner and outer rockers, inner aprons, and much more replaced, with NOS, Taiwan, and donor sheet metal. I really don’t see an issue with it so long as the work is done to make it the correct car. Not just putting the vin on it, this is really only taboo in the US. In the UK you can order a brand new body from British Motor Heritage for a Mini, MGB, Austin Sprite, and several other cars, because they rust out. Some of the most prominent cars in rally racing (all road registered in the UK) have had new bodies three or four times.

 

[hypostang]

I believe that a Dynacorn body can be used legally on a restoration so I see no problem with using another body :headscratch:

 

[Calponycarsmike]

I saw this car on a Mustang/Shelby Restoration shop website. This '69 GT350 Convertible is scheduled to be restored. It's hard to tell it was a Mustang at all. I wonder how they will do it..... Maybe they will tout the original bolt from a fender when they sell it!

Where is this shop?

 

[67ragtopStang]

Where is this shop?

I just went to the website and the photos are not there anymore. It was a while back that I saved those pics. The shop has been sold since I last was at their website. It was Tango Classics and now it is ShelbyMustang.com. The old shop was located in Bellingham, Massachusetts.

 

[STERLING351]

Oh i though you were swapping the VIN of one car and putting it on a different one like the 1974 Gone in 60 seconds.

 

[Calponycarsmike]

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.

 

[Veronica]

Is that the same? It kind is a grey area.

Hi again. No, it isn't and no, it isn't :nogrinner 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.

 

[Calponycarsmike]

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/Body%20Shop/AABodyShop/65rogersbanda/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"??

 

[Veronica]

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. :gringreen

 

[Calponycarsmike]

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. :gringreen

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.