Curiosity Question: Dynacorn bodies

[AtlantaSteve]

OK, I'm just curious about this...I have no intention (nor ability) to go buying a Dynacorn body anytime soon, but I just wonder about this, and am hoping someone knows the answer...

How the heck do you register a dynacorn car for street use?  Do they come with clean VINs?  What does dynacorn do? buy scrappers and just do vin-transplants?  that doesn't seem legal, but how on earth would you register a car built in 2010 as a 1969?    I know some states (most? all?) allow hobbyists to built and register their own cars, like kit cars and the like, with state issued vins...is that how the Dynacorns work?

Like I said, just a curiosity question. Thanks!

[gtscode]

Depends on the state.  To me it should be a kit car but obviously most people do a VIN swap from a junker.  Although illegal in most states.   Who wants a muscle car that needs to pass smog or safety inspections.

I guess I do start to agree with the what's the difference when these crazy guys replace every panel line of thinking. Just a lot easier.

 I think cost is a deterrent for most people anyway so you don't see these debates as much as you use to.  

[daveSanborn]

As I understand it....

With each Dynacorn replacement body comes the necessary paperwork to register the car with a state issued VIN.  I've heard stories that due to variances in vehicle registration laws from state to state.... that some states are MUCH more difficult to work with than others.

The flipside is that most Dynacorn bodies that are purchased by individual consumers.... are done so as a "repair action" and the original cars VIN is simply cutoff the old car and grafted onto the Dynacorn shell.

[AzPete]

.... are done so as a "repair action" and the original cars VIN is simply cutoff the old car and grafted onto the Dynacorn shell.

That is backwards.....they cut the old body off of the VIN and attach a new body to it...........leaving the VIN in place when the new body is rolled in.  :lol

[AtlantaSteve]

That is backwards.....they cut the old body off of the VIN and attach a new body to it...........leaving the VIN in place when the new body is rolled in.  :lol

 :lol :lol :lol :lol

Quote of the day.  Thanks, guys.  It's about what I figured but I just wanted to know for sure.  I know I've seen a lot of upset stomachs over people vin-grafting K-Code VINs into T-Code bodies, and the like, and wondered if the same shenanigans were afoot with Dynacorn.  Sounds like in some instances they are.

Steve

[daveSanborn]

and wondered if the same shenanigans were afoot with Dynacorn.  Sounds like in some instances they are.

Personally, I don't consider grafting the VIN from a rusted/rotted/collison damaged classic Mustang onto a Dynacorn replacement body an unethical practice as long as full disclosure is made at the time of sale.

Look at it this way....  what's the difference between ordering and installing a new replacement Dynacorn one-piece floor, roof, rear quarters, frame rails, trunk panels, firewall, cowl, dash, front frame rails, aprons, radiator support, etc., etc..... AND grafting the original VIN onto these panels...... or just buying the whole body and grating the original VIN on?  Technically, a "replacement body" is just a larger "repair panel".

[Fast68back]

 :wstup :nta

[AzPete]

I agree.....it is all in the wording. That is why I say you graft the new body onto the VIN plate.

[AtlantaSteve]

Would you feel the same way about, say, grafting a dynacorn Sportsroof body with a Coupe VIN?

Could I make my 66 coupe look like a 69 sportsroof by grafting the vin?   My point is, at what point does it start to cross the line.   TO ME, when you're selling a vehicle and the only part of that vehicle that rolled down the line is the vin, it's crossing the line of reality.  I understand your point about replacing every body part one at a time.  It starts to beg the "George Washington's Axe" question.

I agree with you that the most important part of the "ethics" here is whether you make full disclosure at sell time, or not, but I'm starting to have a hard time understanding exactly how it's OK to use a dynacorn body, but not OK to use a 6 cylinder body, with your 69 Mach 1 VIN.

Not trying to argue, just kinda trying to figure out how I feel about this by expressing how I see it and seeing where I have holes in my opinion :)

[AzPete]

That is only based on the honesty of the original builder. I look at it as long as the VIN is what the car is.....you are ok.

Thing is....this has been done all thru the history of building classics and hotrods. I know for a fact it was done on several '57 Chevies back in the 60's and 70's because the Belair was more valuable. In todays world, the computer makes it more known and more discussion about it.

I am not for lies and cheating on it.....just be honest and things work out. I also know that after a couple of sales, know one knows what was real and not.

[daveSanborn]

Would you feel the same way about, say, grafting a dynacorn Sportsroof body with a Coupe VIN?

No.  I would consider this absolutely ridiculous.  Who in their right mind would spend $15k on a replacement body.... and ALL of the associated paint/assembly work.... only to give the finished product a VIN that didn't match the car?  You may as well graft the VIN from a Fairlane onto the car.  It would be stupid to do so.

[AtlantaSteve]

LOL, yeah, I was going to extremes with it, but only because I'm trying to see where the lines are.   That's why I took it as ridiculous as grafting my 66 Coupe vin.   But your point is it would be stupid...you are absolutely right.  But would it be dishonest?

[daveSanborn]

But would it be dishonest?

IMO, putting the "why on earth would you do that?" aside, it would only be dishonest if at the time of sale the seller did not disclose his stupidity of using a Coupe VIN on a Sportsroof body to an un-knowing buyer.

[AtlantaSteve]

OK.  Got it.

[turq66]

.....as long as full disclosure is made at the time of sale.

That's where it gets tricky. Especially after it changes hands a few times.

[stangg]

When a friend of mine went to register / title his '67 fastback (original) he got all uptight when he recieved the official title from the state because it states "coupe" in the body style field.   He called the DMV and they said it was because they do not have a "fastback" option in their database.

 

[John Del]

The problem is the slippery slope that starts with a legitimate body repair, and ends in outright fraud.  This is the reason that it's ILLEGAL to remove the VIN from a motor vehicle, period.  If someone can site an authoritative source that refutes this, I'm all eyes.

John

[crustycurmudgeon]

fixed it for ya. :lol

Hmmm...methinks you thought this was Del65...

Frank

[KBMWRS]

You're right Frank. I saw Del and thought of John. :doh

[daveSanborn]

The problem is the slippery slope that starts with a legitimate body repair, and ends in outright fraud.  This is the reason that it's ILLEGAL to remove the VIN from a motor vehicle, period.  If someone can site an authoritative source that refutes this, I'm all eyes.

John

That's not entirely correct.  The intent of the law is to prevent moving a VIN from one vehicle to another.  Using a pre-67 Mustang as an example what happens when during the course of repair/restoration the fender aprons require replacement?  It's common practice to cut the VIN stamped area from the old apron and graft it onto the new panel.  Have you removed the VIN from the vehicle?  For a period of time, yes.  Is this illegal?  No.  The removal and reinstallation of the VIN was neccesitated as part of a repair action and not an intent to commit a fraudulant act. 

What if instead of using the forward inner apron to expedite the repair you instead use the somewhat newly available one-piece inner apron assemblies that includes the shock tower and extends from the cowl to the radiator support?  This is also a repair panel, it's just bigger.

The Dynacorn replacement body shell is not a vehicle, it's a repair part that is just bigger than the forward inner apron panel or the one-piece inner apron.

It's illegal to transfer a VIN from one vehicle to another and you'll get no arguments from me on this, but the Dynacorn replacement body shell is not a vehicle, it's a repair part.

[PJ Moran]

Dave makes sense, but I don't completely agree.

On my car, almost everything but the shell is new.  And some of it is repop panels or parts from donor cars.  There is almost nothing attached to the shell that came with the car originally.  But, the VIN is still riveted to the dash and stamped on the aprons.  My car only sorta resembles the car that came from Ford.  I built it "from scratch" using a collection of reconditioned / modified parts from other cars or reproduction parts.  It's almost as much a "kit car" as one you would build using a Dynacorn body as a beginning.

If you buy a Dynacorn body, and use it to replace the body of another car, but in the end little or nothing ends up coming from the original car, is it still OK to swap the VIN?

In the early days, the engine was the numbered part and the car was attached to it.  Today, it seems that the body shell is what defines the car.  Once you replace the shell, I think you crossed the line.  At that point, you need to declare it a "new" car that is quite similar to an old one.  The street rodding community is all to familiar with this dilemma and there are laws in place to deal with their case.  They don't have to register their cars as "new" or abide by the regulations of new cars.  Using a DC body is just like building a street rod.  My car is a street rod, of sorts.

[AzPete]

I gotta go with Dave on this. If not, anytime a car was damaged in the VIN mounting area, it would be automatically destroyed and not rebuilt. I have seen used dash boards replaced in modern cars thru insurance claims so the VIN had to be moved.......

[John Del]

I gotta go with Dave on this. If not, anytime a car was damaged in the VIN mounting area, it would be automatically destroyed and not rebuilt.

Not true.  The DMV will assign a new VIN to the vehicle in such cases.  If a VIN needs to be removed legally, it needs to be done under the auspices of the DMV.

Responding to earlier comments:

Intent has nothing to do with it.  It is illegal to remove a VIN, period.  This means it's illegal to remove the VIN, and put it back on the same car.  I'm not saying folks don't do it, or even that I wouldn't do it on my own car.  What I'm saying is that it's illegal.  Anybody doing this should be aware of it.  Ignorance of the law is no more applicable than intent is.

If you run across a 65 Mustang that has the VINs on the aprons removed and installed.  Can you tell if the "car" it's attached to is or isn't stolen?

John

[daveSanborn]

If a VIN needs to be removed legally, it needs to be done under the auspices of the DMV.

Laws vary from state to state, but I know for a fact that this is true in my state as the DMV inspector has been in my shop on several occasions.

The next time he comes around I will definitely ask him about the Dynacorn replacement shells and how NC is handling them.

[John Del]

The next time he comes around I will definitely ask him about the Dynacorn replacement shells and how NC is handling them.

When you speak to him, ask him about the full frame\aprons as well.  My 66 has fairly porked front frame rails including around the base of the shock towers.  The full Dynacorn pieces are certainly attractive, and I'd love to do the whole assy for strength as opposed to sectioning them in, but of course worry about the VIN issue.  I suppose I could live with a CT issued VIN, but I'd love to keep the original VIN with the car.

If I do decide on the Dynacorn assemblies, I'm going to try to section out the entire area with the exception of the top of the apron where the VIN lives, and see if I can sneak the Dynacorn assembly underneath.  I figure that by keeping the apron welded to the firewall, the VIN was never off the car.  I'm going to speak with the CT DMV before I attempt it.

John