Rebodied cars and do they get certified

[Stuart Adams]

I agree 100%, very difficult and unrealistic. Just wishing. Having purchased a Shelby recently and getting a copy of the Registry is wonderful. Actually very appealing selling feature of Shelby's because of that. Not perfect, but close.

It's just hard when the very strong passion we all have for the hobby can't be even more enjoyable becasue of all these stressful #rs, Vins, Etc, etc.

If it was done many years ago when $ didn't matter as much, then it would be awesome now, bummer.

[Allen]

[ QUOTE ]

A lot of the cars in our hobby today were restored years ago, when they were worth a lot less money, and the rebody issue was not such touchy issue. I know of several very suspect cars right now, if exposed, would cause all h-ll to break loose. And who could blame someone for being upset, who had paid big $$ for a car, only to hear that it was bogus. And then, what about the seller, who suddenly was under attack, maybe even in court. A sticky wicket to say the least.



[/ QUOTE ]

Bogus? I'm starting to get confused.... (doesn't take much at times!)

There seems to be a need for certain lines drawn or definitions on the discussion - Bogus, rebody, fake, restamp, recreation, clone, etc.

To me, each issue has certain degrees of difficult associated with it.

I'd think a bogus car or fake car is one turned into something it originally wasn't - like taking a plain Chevelle, putting SS stuff and a 454 in there, and faking stamps, build sheets, etc. and then a miracle occurs and it becomes a rare LS6. That's a bogus/fake car. Something that never was, but now is. If the GM records miraculously appeared, there wouldn't be a car in that configuration with those numbers. Those are flat-out wrong.


Restamping engines or trannies or rears to fake them and make them appear to be original to a car when they aren't isn't right either. Then again, I feel the same way about new "dated" glass too, although most people feel differently about engine stamps and dates than glass dates.

The grayest area seems to be the repair/restoration of "real" or special cars and the process that's used. Repairing every piece of metal is apparently not a legal crime as long as you don't remove the tags, right?

However, while there usually isn't any original body panels remaining when a severely deteriorated car is restored, it's not morally wrong for the collector/enthusiast either if the whole thing has been rebuilt around a roof and firewall.

But, taking that original rusty car and transferring everything (factory drivetrain, wiring, interior, tags, whatever) to a better shell/chunk of original metal that rolled down the same assembly line through the same plant and was built the same way and treating it much like a repair part or panel is wrong? I know it crosses the legal line due to the tag swap, but overlooking that, how is it any different to the end result of restoring/saving a car?

Another scenario that gets real murky is when someone has a rusted hulk with pedigreed tags and NO factory original drivetrain or the parts that made it special in the first place. Taking a VIN, putting it on another shell, and then faking an engine and drivetrain and the rest of the car around it isn't right either. I see less of an issue with transferring all the original parts to a different shell than I do with taking a VIN and cowl tag and faking a drivetrain and car around it.

Each person has their opinion, and this will never be resolved. My intent was to just type and try and sort out my own thoughts. Thanks for reading!

[SamLBInj]

Question, If you take a Yenko cowl section with vin and trim tag and graft it onto a 69 Shelby Mustang is it still a Yenko? Thats what a rebody amounts to.

[jfkheat]

[ QUOTE ]
I know of several very suspect cars right now, if exposed, would cause all h-ll to break loose. And who could blame someone for being upset, who had paid big $$ for a car, only to hear that it was bogus. And then, what about the seller, who suddenly was under attack, maybe even in court. A sticky wicket to say the least.



[/ QUOTE ]

It's statements like that where I have a problem. These "suspect" cars will probably never be revealed for what they are because of who they belong to. But let any other supercar or muscle car come up and people are all over it telling what all is wrong with it. In my opinion, it is more acceptable to replace 80% or 90% of a $250K supercar than it is to replace the same amount on a $40K muscle car. It all about the all mighty dollar.
James

[PeteLeathersac]

Great situations of reference, both the real and supossed ones! . Again I'll say the intent to defraud would be an important one if a buyer expected sucess in litigation. . For sure it's a big grey area some don't want clarification on but the DMV definition above gives a good idea of how it would be looked at legally. . A tough point I see is the "creator" of the item in question is not necesarily the person commiting the fraud (whether he be the bodyman or orchestrator of the puzzle) if he keeps his records and facts open and discloses all at sale time. . When finished however, the person who titles or sells the item without filing the necessary DMV paperwork is who would be "looked poorly on" and always remember that old saying, ignorance of the law is no excuse! . With so many scenarios to consider, it's tough to draw a line anywhere? . A "firewall" car or any method thats true purpose is to transfer the Vin and hidden Vin is questionable....and if the car is so rusty, why is the firewall being welded into a nice body other than to transfer identity? . The biggest thing I get from this whole thread is, a genuine survivor car is worth a whole lot more than a restored car no mater how "perfect or correct" the restoration car is! ~ Pete

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

While we are exploring situations here:

A car has a firewall job done when it was only 1.5 years old as a repair while under insurance. The firewall effort was not concealed, and was just ripped across the floorboards - rockers and all. The original green paint is still visible on this blue car.

What is it? Is it acceptable as a repair? The motive at the time it was done was to repair it, not to defraud anyone.

[SS427]

[ QUOTE ]
While we are exploring situations here:

A car has a firewall job done when it was only 1.5 years old as a repair while under insurance. The firewall effort was not concealed, and was just ripped across the floorboards - rockers and all. The original green paint is still visible on this blue car.

What is it? Is it acceptable as a repair? The motive at the time it was done was to repair it, not to defraud anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfect example Marlin! We think of nothing about these cars that were in fact repaired back in their infant days but the same job done today is taboo.

[PeteLeathersac]

A car has a firewall job done when it was only 1.5 years old as a repair while under insurance. The firewall effort was not concealed, and was just ripped across the floorboards - rockers and all. The original green paint is still visible on this blue car.

What is it? Is it acceptable as a repair? The motive at the time it was done was to repair it, not to defraud anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the proof is there to support the above, the intent to defraud is not there....yet! . Sounds like a "clipped" car which is cut/joined through the floors and A-pilars and a common repair shop situation. . So, here we are years later, do you now clean up the poor workmanship....probably, even though it "disguises" this repair fact further. . Just when you sell the car you need to pass this information on to the next owner and it's best to do this on paper so if he ever sells it without doing the same to the susequent buyer, he can't say he wasn't aware! ~ Pete

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

See, I do see something wrong with the 1.5 year old repair - in that, I would not want to own it! The original car is long gone, only the firewall (+some rocker & toe board material) remains. The intent was clearly not there, but it is still a firewalled car. It's very muddy waters here.

[camarojoe]

I agree 100% Marlin. IMO, a rebody is a rebody...period. It makes no difference when it was done, who did it, or who does or doesn't know about it. As much as people like to argue about it, the fact remains that no one REALLY thinks its ok to do anyhow. Those who do it generally keep very quiet that they did it, while at the same time, lots of supercars/musclecars have extensive panel replacement and thats rarely a big secret. In fact, its often used as a positive feature... how many ads list "New GM sheetmetal" as a selling factor? Lots. Thats because replacing alot of sheetmetal is WAY different than putting a firewall from one car onto a different car and calling it restored.

Once again, replacing sheetmetal and clipping a complete car and welding the firewall onto another one is not, was not, and will never be "the same thing" no matter how much folks try to tell themselves (or others) that it is. I have yet to see a car that had a useable firewall and tags, but NOTHING at all that was salvageable on it from the firewall back.

Hopefully my point is understood, because thats all i have to say on the matter. Everyone can "debate" the definition all they want, but in my mind, the difference between panel replacement and rebodying is rather clear.