Rolling Shell with no VIN

[87mj]

Wow

[Zed Head]

4 minutes ago, 87mj said:

Wow

Here, I'll make it easier for you.

How many people would like to know more about how 87mj ended up with a car with two VINs?  And how many people think that retaining ownership of a shell with two VINs is "shady"?

There you go.  It's not about me now, wow, it's about the perception of owning illegal things, even if got them honestly.  Like I said, appearances.

[tzagi1]

As long as the body vin is not reported stolen...87mj has NOTHING to be concerned with.

[rturbo 930]

1 hour ago, Zed Head said:

You really should go dig up all of the backstory that you can.  Otherwise, you'll always seem a little shady.  No offense, but you have a car in your possession that might be stolen or part of a years-ago scam.  If you don't try to find out how the two VIN shell came to have two VINs, you're accepting it's shadiness.  You already talked about "hiding" it for ten years.

No, he didn't, YOU did. He said he was putting it in storage because he doesn't have the time to deal with it. YOU applied the assumption that he was hiding it, and therefore felt he was guilty of something.

I do think MJ should run the firewall VIN just to be sure, but to suggest that he is shady or guilty of something simply for having it is BS.

At this point, I think this thread has served its purpose and should be closed.

[Zed Head]

1 hour ago, Zed Head said:

You already talked about "hiding" it for ten years.

Appearances and all that.  I don't know you all I know is what you've written on the old internet.

I used the apostrophes to show that I was not using the word in its normal fashion.  Sorry that it did not come through that way.  Often, apostrophes are used to add ironic effect, I think.

Followed by my comment about "appearance" (this time the apostrophes are for emphasis).  We've already some people accuse him of "moral turpitude" (this time I'm just being funny).

I'm just trying to close the loop and find out what he's going to do with the car, while pointing out that he still has possession of a car that might be stolen.  Which, is pretty much the whole point of his thread.  He asked what he should do about his shell with two VINs.  My post is back to the original question.  He should try to determine true ownership, and clear up any past nefarious activity.

[Zed Head]

On 11/19/2017 at 1:18 AM, 87mj said:

Should I ignore the firewall tag VIN or try to get the original VIN tags with the firewall on it? Is there any way I can get new VIN tags?  Does it even matter if those three tags don't match the firewall? I assume people have run into this before when they have bought a rolling shell so it cant be a new problem.  Would you consider this to be simply a non numbers matching car or is it more than that?  Am I over thinking it?

Any advice would be appreciated even if it is wrong.   

Thanks

Gary

Maybe we should start from the beginning.  Do-over.

[Patcon]

34 minutes ago, rturbo 930 said:

No, he didn't, YOU did. He said he was putting it in storage because he doesn't have the time to deal with it. YOU applied the assumption that he was hiding it, and therefore felt he was guilty of something.

I do think MJ should run the firewall VIN just to be sure, but to suggest that he is shady or guilty of something simply for having it is BS.

At this point, I think this thread has served its purpose and should be closed.

I don't don't think Zed Head was implying deception. I think he was implying it could be perceived this way. If you look at Zed Head's post over the years, this doesn't fit the M.O.

[tzagi1]

Quote: Legally, it's rolling around on an old VIN that needs to be approved by your local DMV.

Dear mike, you do speak with much authority, did you call you local dmv and ask? perhaps you should.

Call the main DMV and tell them I'm planning to do xyz, do I need to do anything else? its that simple.

Over the last 30 years I have done DOZENS and DOZENS of swaps, Jeep on a toyota frame, Isuzu amigo on a toyota frame (don't believe me? I got pics)

Gassers to diesels, diesels to gassers....non is a problem, before any project I would pick up the phone to dmv or just drop by the local lab and speak to them, explain what I'm doing, all I ever got was usefull information on how to do it properly and in accordance with the law. I never heard the term "you can't do that" ever!

[Gav240z]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

I've skimmed over most of this, but in my mind it's dead simple.

If a car has a VIN # stamped on the firewall, that's the car it was and always will be. The other riveted on tags in the engine bay, door jamb, or dashboard are all removable and in the case of the car the original poster is talking about have come from another car. As to the circumstances that have lead to that outcome, well that's the unknown, but of course it could range from rather nefarious actions taken by someone in the past or more innocent reasons (I'm guessing the former to be honest).

The way I see it the car is the number as indicated on it's chassis engraving / firewall section etc.. All other ID tags should be removed and the ID of that vehicle should be assumed dead / deceased.

If there is no outstanding problems with the VIN # on the Firewall and the car can be registered under that ID without issue, then I would get a title for that ID and set about looking at getting remanufactured ID plates for the other locations made (Door jamb, dashboard, engine bay etc..) that match the firewall VIN.

To give an example:

HS30 00267

https://photos.app.goo.gl/SbqsCQ0mOfEX87Xp2

This car should be an early 240z but it has the later storage bins, vented 1/4 panels and a dual throttle lever with it (which was continued into 71 on AU market cars), but we know it didn't start life as HS30 00267. We have to assume 267 is dead. Well in fact this car was scrapped because of it's questionable identity.

In Australia anyway, lots of cars were given cut n' shut jobs and it was legal all the way up to the 1980s when it was outlawed as too many people got hurt when these cut n' shut jobs were performed incorrectly. It's possible #267 was 1 of those, but most would be buyers would probably steer clear of such vehicles. I know I would, especially when it's portraying itself as an early car, with very few of the early car features remaining.

 

[grannyknot]

[87mj]

2 hours ago, grannyknot said:

I agree. The conversation has fallen into the abyss. 

[HS30-H]

On 11/19/2017 at 9:18 AM, 87mj said:

I sure can use some advice here. 

Any advice would be appreciated even if it is wrong.   

Thanks

Gary

It's still on track according to your original post, as far as I can see.

Unless a little too much sunlight has been let in on the 'magic' for your taste...?