News story....

[daveSanborn]

http://jalopnik.com/5582902/police-raid-classic-recreations-over-vin-swapping


Let's try not to jump to any conclusions.

[Fast68back]

Having been to Jason's shop, I can say he runs a class operation. I'm sure they will be cleared.

[sigtauenus]

This whole thing with VINs has been debated many times over, especially when you get into issues such as the Dynacorn bodies.

I'm confused as to what actually was going on and what the DA is looking to charge him with.  From everything I've seen, Jason was only buying solid cars with V8 VINs, so there would be no need to swap anything.

[AzPete]

Really sounds like a hunting party. I agree on what they were buying from what I have read. I wonder if they do not understand the Shelby number plate alongside the original. Hope he gets it all worked out......

[apollard]

I'm one of the media reps for our company. I highly doubt the news reporters got Jasons' statement correct. They never get ours correct (which is why we record everything).

[Johnny M]

I bet that this is all BS.....Jason runs a good business.

[gtscode]

Wow!  Bummer for sure.  Jason mentioned in the wanted section he was looking for cars and didn't use Dynacorn shells.  Wonder where they went wrong?

[sigtauenus]

Wow!  Bummer for sure.  Jason mentioned in the wanted section he was looking for cars and didn't use Dynacorn shells.  Wonder where they went wrong?

Yeah, and think about it, if he was going to use Dynacorn and be up front about it, that would put him ahead of the game given the work involved rebuilding an original shell and the fact that he is building 100% new cars anyhow.  He ads specifically were for solid cars, so why waste the effort on finding solid cars to start with if he was going to put a VIN on a Dynacorn body.

My bet is this is a misunderstanding given what he is doing with the cars and its just a matter of time until the DA says "oops" and gives the cars back. 

[silverblueBP]

and when they do "give" the cars back, be prepared for the  :ss  to come.

[abrahamfh]

Even though my opinion doesnt really count, I think the DA just wanted one to drive to some event, or to try and get himself in the paper.

We all know how much work goes into the restoration process on these darn cars, and by the looks of the Mustangs Jason puts out, I just could never imagine him cutting any corners.

[tarafied1]

Jason is one of the only builders of "Eleanor" and Shelby cars to get all the licensing, I can't imagine he would not follow the law on the VIN's.

[Sluggo]

Like Rick, I've been to his facility. Nothing was off limits to us, hell, he even showed us his then "top secret" Shelby build. I looked over his in process cars in detail and did not see anything that garnered any suspicion.

I plan to support him any way I can.

 

[aslan]

I heard that the UPS guy turned him in.  LOL
Stan

[Gigantopithecus]

I heard that the UPS guy turned him in.  LOL
Stan

And planted a couple of cans of :nick

[johnpro]

yeah, this whole thing smells of an assistant DA trying to make a name for himself, by screwing someone else.  Even  the picture in the article shows a "Shelby tag", be it real or not, NEXT to the original VIN.  Nothing illegal about that at all, unless the original VIN below was grafted into this body.

Hopefully the justice system finally works in this case!

[daveSanborn]

Classic Recreations is located in Oklahoma.  Below is an excerpt from Oklahoma VIN laws.

Vehicle Identification:
Your vehicle registration number will be based on the vehicle identification number (VIN) located on the body of the vehicle (body VIN). If the vehicle has a custom body without a body VIN, a VIN will be issued by the OTC. This number must then be die stamped onto the door plate on the vehicle.

Switching the VIN from one car to another is a violation of federal laws, but..... installing the VIN onto a repair panel is not.  The Dynacorn "replacement body shell" is not a car, it's a repair part.  With "replacement body shells" being recently made available to the public, state VIN laws are woefully inadequate".

If you read through the news stories.... not scan through them.... there's a LOT of misinformation coming from the local authorites.  Such as:


OSBI special agent Gary Perkinson said:

"They were presenting them as original Mustangs when in fact they were not,” Perkinson said.


So a Mustang that has a Dynacorm one-piece floor pan is still an "original Mustang", but a Mustang with the larger "Dynacorn replacement body shell" isn't?


Perkinson said VIN plates from junked cars were found at on at least two of the new Dynacorn bodies.

"Those are obviously not original Shelby bodies,” Perkinson said.

I'm 100% certain that Classic Recreations under no circumstances ever stated anywhere that they were using "original Shelby bodies" to make their continuation cars.



I'm sure that Jason will get all of this straightened out.  Until then let's all give him the benefit of the doubt.  After reading the comments from the SAAC forum members on their related thread I'm so glad I'll never own a real Shelby.  I feel stupider for having read through all of their drivel.  They act as if Carrol Shelby himself hand-built each one of the original 65-70 Shelby's.  What's the difference between Shelby North America taking original Ford Mustangs and "slightly" accenting them into bonafide Shelby's back in the late 60's.... and Classic Recreations taking original Ford Mustangs and doing the same thing?  People are confusing the word's "original Shelby Mustang".  The GT500CR isn't one of the "original" Shelby Mustangs, but it is a Shelby Mustang.  Those SAAC guys just need to get over it.

[Fast68back]

Well said Dave!

[AzPete]

I gotta agree on reading all that crap on SAAC forums, I was wondering who they were talking about.

Just like so many internet news info being passed around. One never knows until the final words and even then the truth may never come out. We know of the company in one or two aspects. The news does look real slanted and some poor info is being stated for sure. I hope that Jason does have what it takes to fight back properly.

[sigtauenus]

Well said Dave!

+1

Agree on all counts

Also, it appears that we may see this often debated "what constitutes original?" debate settled in court.  Or not.   :dh

[John Del]

If a Dynacorn body shows up with an original Mustang VIN, it's been done illegally.

I don't know what the problem is though.  If a company wants to use a Dynacorn "replacement" body part (face it, it's a freaking car), all they need to do is have the DMV issue a legitimate VIN for the car.

John

[sigtauenus]

If a Dynacorn body shows up with an original Mustang VIN, it's been done illegally.

I don't know what the problem is though.  If a company wants to use a Dynacorn "replacement" body part (face it, it's a freaking car), all they need to do is have the DMV issue a legitimate VIN for the car.

John

Like I said previously, this has been debated many times. 

[Sluggo]

I don't know what the problem is though.  If a company wants to use a Dynacorn "replacement" body part (face it, it's a freaking car), all they need to do is have the DMV issue a legitimate VIN for the car.

John

That's where the problems start. If you issue a new vin to the car that makes it have to comply to the standards in place in the year built ...no? Wonder how kit car guys get around this......

[AzPete]

A local club member just traded (even) a '68 Fastback (so-so) for a complete (sweet) Factory Five Cobra big block. It came from Ga. I believe. I asked what it was registered as and he said it was listed as a 1965 FF5 Cobra.......built recently but still on the books as a 1965.

[sigtauenus]

If a Dynacorn body shows up with an original Mustang VIN, it's been done illegally.

I don't know what the problem is though.  If a company wants to use a Dynacorn "replacement" body part (face it, it's a freaking car), all they need to do is have the DMV issue a legitimate VIN for the car.

John

Going back to this quote, just how far down the rabbit hole do we go?

Here is the rules in my state...
http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/vehicles/reconstructed.asp

Technically, since my car has an entire rear clip (Dynacorn quarters, frame rails, trunk floor, taillight panel, etc), OR the fact that my car has an engine from another car, OR the fact that my car has a transmission from another car, OR the fact that my car has a rear axle from another car.  Actually, I'm trying to think of a single part I've put back on the car that is original to it.  The glove box door comes to mind, as does the instrument cluster and the rear window.  I'm sure if I thought harder I might come up with some more parts but very few remain.

Technically speaking, I should have applied for a reconstructed title.  I bet using the strict application of the law, most of us here are in the same boat.

So while we sit here and talk the finer points of the legalities of VIN swapping, we are effectively no different than the guy on the highway with cruise control set at 80 in a 55 cussing at the guy doing 85 as he gets passed. 

Going back to what was said earlier and my own conversations with the VA DMV, I could legally use a Dynacorn body as a replacement part, transfer the VIN,  and have it inspected and provide proof of ownership of all the parts as required, and as long as the reconstructed vehicle does not differ significantly from the vehicle that matched the VIN, I can still use the VIN I have and not have one assigned.  Granted doing so would require a reconstructed title, but it would be legal.

[AzPete]

Hey now, everything on my car is original.....johnpro said so....... :lol