So is it a 72 or an 86?

[davidbir]

Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere. On ebay at present:
Porsche : 911: eBay Motors (item 180572825244 end time Oct-31-10 17:24:14 PDT)

What is it?

[DDDD]

I think your answer is right in the description:

"This motor was built with leftover parts that
were for the true racecars."


It is just another mutt built from random parts, in my most humble opinion. Probably a smashed 1986 roller. I would love to know where the 72 VIN number came from versus the 86 tub.

It sure ain't a 1973 RS anything.

Probably will sell to somebody overseas knowing the way this game is played lately.

[geshaghi]

Hard to tell exactly what was done based on the photos, but the floor pans are clearly not early car. That being said, I can't tell from the photos if they are original pans or replacements. Trailing arms & cross member are aluminum. Treatment in the front trunk prevents one from figuring out what has gone on up there, but I suspect the front end has been clipped. I would be very surprised if the car sells anywhere near the asking price, but I've been surprised before....

[davidbir]

I had in mind the discussion on the 911 Technical thread about a car with the VIN that had been tampered with--this seems to be a blatant example of the same thing--since they are disclosing it, is it legal?

[dienstuhr]

Originally Posted by geshaghi

Hard to tell exactly what was done based on the photos, but the floor pans are clearly not early car. That being said, I can't tell from the photos if they are original pans or replacements. Trailing arms & cross member are aluminum. Treatment in the front trunk prevents one from figuring out what has gone on up there, but I suspect the front end has been clipped. I would be very surprised if the car sells anywhere near the asking price, but I've been surprised before....

Your observations are borne out by the description... states a 1986 tub with an earlier front clip... but the VIN should be that of the '86, not a '72. Disclosing a tampered VIN doesn't make it legal.

d.

[geshaghi]

Originally Posted by dienstuhr

Your observations are borne out by the description... states a 1986 tub with an earlier front clip... but the VIN should be that of the '86, not a '72. Disclosing a tampered VIN doesn't make it legal.

d.

I don't see where it says it has been clipped in the description, only that it is a "1973 front" which still doesn't explain the 72 VIN. In any event, as noted, this is probably two cars stitched together. In terms of legality, I don't profess to be an expert on what each state requires. In California, I know that the DMV requires a VIN verification for an out of state car that is brought in to the state, and this can be done at the DMV, AAA or CHP, among other places. The diligence of the inspection is dependent on nothing other than the whim of the inspector. For example, I brought a early targa to the AAA to have registered a few weeks ago. The very nice woman from AAA came out to the parking lot and asked me if I knew where the VIN was. I proceeded to tell her that it appears in several places. She looked at the aluminum tag that had been screwed (not riveted) back in place after a PO repainted the car, checked off a few boxes asked me about the mileage and that was all she needed. In contrast, when I registered a car in North Carolina last year, the DMV inspector arrived at my house, with his sidearm and badge prominently attached to his hip, and proceeded to crawl over the car and a stack of reference materials to confirm the VIN in multiple locations on my 72T. I am grateful that it was in all four places, as I feared execution if it wasn't! I do know that some states will also title kit and re-manufactured cars based on the year that they emulate, although California isn't one of them.

It remains a question in my mind as to whether putting the back half of one car together with the front half of another would constitute VIN tampering. Is there some magical line which, if you weld or cut beyond, requires you to use the VIN of one car or the other? As far as I know, with the exception of the Federal sticker on the driver's side door jamb (which is missing on about 80% of the repainted cars I have seen), there is nothing rear of the A-pillar on a 911 with a visible VIN. Of course, you can't cut the body tag off of one car and weld it into another, but at what point do the legal requirements (assuming two perfectly clean and legal halfs) require you to use one VIN over the other? Again, assuming two perfectly legal halves, the primary benefit would likely be emissions related.

Beyond the murky legal question, the issue has become a bit of a question for classic car owners. I've read a few articles recently that have focused on controversies related to multiple cars laying claim to a particular chassis number or VIN. For an interesting read, check out a recent article from Sports Car Market here: Dual-Identity Cars
As values tend to rise for early cars, I can see this becoming more of a problem.

[ossiblue]

IMO, definitely a front clip was welded on--look at this photo posted on the facebook page of the builder:


From the position of the welded seam, the original VIN stamp for the 86 should still be present by the smugglers box, which brings up the questions posed by George as to having a car with two different VIN's that were legally assembled. In California, that would require the DMV to assign a new VIN for the car which would probably be based on the emissions for the engine. The assigned VIN would now be the only legal number to title the car, not a Porsche VIN--something many collectors do not like to see.

This car is registered as a 72. If the VIN by the smugglers box is present, it is a car with conflicting identities that, sooner or later, an owner will need to rectify. The seller has disclosed the discrepancy and in some states there may be no problem but somewhere down the line, someone will be stuck with a car that is difficult to sell,IMO.

My take on this is the builder is legit and wanted to build a car that could be registered as a long hood, not only for "authenticity" but for ease of registration in most states. He did not want to tamper with the VIN as that would be illegal and he likely had the paperwork for the early car so he used the clip, and used the same paperwork to register the final product--very easy to do as no DMV inspection would be required.

Many tributes, clones, and backdates are offered up these days and in nearly every case, the builder lists the VIN of the later tub as the source for title because it is the platform on which the recreation is based. In this case, the clip was used to title the rest of the tub. Using the clip and its VIN to change the looks of the car is perfectly legal. Using that VIN to title the car is sketchy at best as it's a case of "don't ask, don't tell" to the DMV. It's possible to dodge the conflicting VIN issue for a while but eventually, the numbers will need to be reconciled. This is a car to consider at a much lower price due to this problem, or to pass on altogether if you want to avoid future headaches.

[geshaghi]

Definitely clipped. Not sure how they titled it as a 72. Hard sell in my book, as this car probably has the VIN of the later car still stamped near the smuggler's box as L.J. notes (and if not, then it may be an even bigger problem), and the title/identity issues will need to be addressed by someone sooner or later.

[techweenie]

Odd car. 901 trans? interesting choice.

As the ad says "Hope in and drive." As in hope the Highway Patrol doesn't look over the car when you transfer it to your state. I can tell you from experience that if it is bought by someone in California, the CHP will look it over pretty closely. Do you feel lucky?

[Macroni]

If I was spending $85,000 I would not even want a question as to any thing that would possibly question value.........

[davidbir]

I noted the seller is moving to California-the reason for the sale perhaps?

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by davidbir

I noted the seller is moving to California-the reason for the sale perhaps?

Interesting thought given the car is already in California--with Ohio plates. To register the car here, he'd have to go through DMV as mentioned above. Anyone in CA who buys it will have to do the same. Possibly the seller doesn't want to gamble and so is offering it up for sale--hopefully to someone from out of state where fewer questions may be asked.

[geshaghi]

Car looks like it still has an Ohio dealer plate on it.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by geshaghi

Car looks like it still has an Ohio dealer plate on it.

George,

What, exactly, does having dealer plates tell someone about title? Does it mean the dealer has title to the car? Does it mean the car may still be titled under the old owner? Does it allow the dealer to sell a car without first transferring title to the dealer (saving fees?) Just curious.

[redturbo911]

$85k you should not be looking at something pieced together. Sorry its just my honest opinion if anyone was thinking of this car. Especially when there is 3 different years mentioned with the vehicle.

[geshaghi]

Originally Posted by ossiblue

George,

What, exactly, does having dealer plates tell someone about title? Does it mean the dealer has title to the car? Does it mean the car may still be titled under the old owner? Does it allow the dealer to sell a car without first transferring title to the dealer (saving fees?) Just curious.

My father used to have a classic car dealership in Hollywood. Those days, the dealer would not re-title the car, but would forward the title to the DMV only after he had sold the car when he made a report of sale. Until then, the car would remain in the dealer inventory and the old title would typically stay in the dealer's safe (or with his lender), and a dealer plate could be used to drive the car around (technically, I think there were some limits on who could driver a car with a dealer plate, as I remember that my mother once got a ticket for driving one of my dad's dealership cars). Not sure if this is still the case in California anymore. I bought a car out of state recently from a dealer, and the title was in the dealer's name, so probably varies from state to state, but I suspect the practice is more typically that a car is not re-titled when put in to dealer inventory.

[ossiblue]

This car has just been re-listed. I sent the following email to the seller:

Very beautiful car and thanks for the links to the photos of the extensive build! However, I am confused by the ad. It says the tub is an 86, the front clip is a 73, and the title is for a 72. In my state, registering a car from out of state, like this one, requires VIN inspection by the DMV or Highway Patrol. Could you please post or send pictures of the VIN by the smuggler's box, on the A pillar, and on the aluminum plate affixed to the front bulkhead? If I'm going to consider spending $65K, I want to be sure there are no problems with mismatched or tampered VIN's.

I will let you know what he replies.

[ossiblue]

Reply from seller:

the front that was put on was a 72 it had the numbers in it that is y it is titled as a 72 both numbers match ,the car is in cali so i cant take a pic ,i will try to get my mon to take a picture of it but cant promise anything.thanks

My reply:

Thank you for the clarification. If I understand correctly, the front clip is from a 72, not a 73, and the clipped portion also includes the stamped VIN by the smuggler's box and the aluminum plate. Is that correct?

From the pictures in the link, I assume the sticker on the door jamb is gone, but what about the VIN plate on the A pillar?

[GaryR]

What is it? It's a sick joke on the idiot thinking it's worth anything more than any other hacked together replica (with a fudged title in most states).

[ossiblue]

My last question to seller (repeat from last post):

Thank you for the clarification. If I understand correctly, the front clip is from a 72, not a 73, and the clipped portion also includes the stamped VIN by the smuggler's box and the aluminum plate. Is that correct?

From the pictures in the link, I assume the sticker on the door jamb is gone, but what about the VIN plate on the A pillar?


Latest reply:

Yes you do understand it correctly & the number on the pillar matches one up front (but was removed & reinstalled when the headliner was installed.)

Okay, my understanding of this situation is that unless the 72 clip included the A pillar (of which there is no evidence), the VIN tag was removed from the 72 and attached to the A pillar of the 86 thus making all current VIN's match. I would call this a case of VIN tampering and stay clear of this car, let alone consider paying $85K for it.