Great discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aron in Toronto
Interesting issue.
How do the replica, "kit car" builders get away with this issue? I always seem to see them advertised as "Titled as a 1957 Porsche" or some such description. Is it because most of the kits are built up from vintage VW pans? If so that still can't explain them being titled as a Porsche. Or is it possible that they are using state reassigned VINs?
|
Aron,
If they keep the original Porsche VIN (cut from salvage), I suspect it is illegal in most states in the US. I think most use a State assigned VIN. There is a USA standard for this where the new VIN identifies the state. I suspect some kit suppliers are ‘manufacturers’ and the chassis comes with a Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin’ (MSO).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TT Oversteer
…
Grady, your scenario seems plausible but at what point are you just creating way too much work for yourself? …
|
Yes, it is a lot of work.
As noted above, in our ‘hypothetical’ the ‘tampering’ path is to cut out the metal VIN and replace it with the other. Even worse, heat the metal, obliterate one VIN and stamp in the other VIN. Any reasonable person (including DMV and police) would find this illegal.
In fact I look for this (or anything even close) on every car I inspect. I don’t think any tamper has passed my eyeball (and light, mirrors, cameras and scope). I have seen a lot and they were ‘dealt with’ officially.
I agree with the ‘intent’ argument. That can be supported by turning in the title, document selling the remains to a salvage operator and carefully documenting the entire procedure.
I think
critical to supporting the ‘intent’ argument is destroying the late VIN and officially canceling the title. I would not let the salvage operator have the VIN but stamp/paint the VIN and “Title canceled” on everything ’87 remaining.
Please correct me - - does an ’87 Carrera have the ’87 VIN stamped, etched or decaled on many of the parts of the car? If so, keeping documentation of the salvage and canceled title with the ‘73T car is important.
Another possible way to establish ‘intent’ might be to officially notify PCNA and PAG. Let them put the ‘repair’ information in the ‘CoA’ file for the cars. What +/- to this?
The ‘way too much work’ scenario starts to look OK and a normal process for the car you are trying to create. To create a non-sunroof
LIGHTWEIGHT with updated engine, transmission and running gear by repairing a damaged (by rust) ’73 911T is perfectly reasonable. In fact this is a common occurrence. You are just doing the process the best possible by destroying another (later) car.
PS: I think the ’73 roof is the first to have improved reinforcements. I don’t know if they are the same as ’87. The ‘73 still has the mounting for the opening rear quarter windows but can also be fixed..
Best,
Grady