To believe or not.........

[HP2]

 If they did really "rebuild" it, it'll never be as good as original unmolested car. 

I dunno. The way Chrysler quality control was back in the day, odds are it is in BETTER condition now than it was new.

[jeryst]

Just food for thought: Suppose Guy #1 has a car that is an original, unmolested car, in pristine, like-new condition, with 20k original miles. Guy #2 has a 20k car that looks identical to the other car, but it has had a complete nut and bolt restoration to get it that way. Is either one worth more than the other? Is Guy#2's car worth more because it has been completely restored and everything is brand new, or is Guy #1's car worth more because of the rarity of its original condition?

[2TAGS]

Unfortunately, that is the big debate here. has it been resurrected, or cloned? I don't see any clones going for that kind of money.

I agree that a clone would not be worth the money he is asking.  It appears he made this car from all the salvageable pieces from an original ducumented '71 Hemi 'Cuda - including the original VIN plate.  I would say it's a rebody and not a clone.  But I am not the buyer and I suppose it only matters what he/she thinks it is.  At least it seems there isn't anything being hidden.  All upfront and out in the open is the best policy.  No surprises and everybody is happy. 

[2TAGS]

Just food for thought: Suppose Guy #1 has a car that is an original, unmolested car, in pristine, like-new condition, with 20k original miles. Guy #2 has a 20k car that looks identical to the other car, but it has had a complete nut and bolt restoration to get it that way. Is either one worth more than the other? Is Guy#2's car worth more because it has been completely restored and everything is brand new, or is Guy #1's car worth more because of the rarity of its original condition?

It depends on the buyer...I'd take car #1 for 20-25% more.

[Super Blue 72]

Just food for thought: Suppose Guy #1 has a car that is an original, unmolested car, in pristine, like-new condition, with 20k original miles. Guy #2 has a 20k car that looks identical to the other car, but it has had a complete nut and bolt restoration to get it that way. Is either one worth more than the other? Is Guy#2's car worth more because it has been completely restored and everything is brand new, or is Guy #1's car worth more because of the rarity of its original condition?

I would think #1 is worth more since it's a "survivor" or sorts. 

[jeryst]

I agree that a clone would not be worth the money he is asking.  It appears he made this car from all the salvageable pieces from an original ducumented '71 Hemi 'Cuda - including the original VIN plate.  I would say it's a rebody and not a clone.  But I am not the buyer and I suppose it only matters what he/she thinks it is.  At least it seems there isn't anything being hidden.  All upfront and out in the open is the best policy.  No surprises and everybody is happy. 

It looks like most of us feel its a rebody. But rebodys are illegal, so why isn't this vehicle being impounded?

[HP2]

Again, what percentage or original steel must replaced for a car to be considered a rebody? 1%, 10%, 75%, 95%, where is this line drawn?

Do replacement parts have to be from the OEM supplier or can they be aftermarket? Is my car more correct if I use NOS quarter panels which never came on it or aftermarket replacement panels that never came on it? Must I used all original parts, can I use any aftermarket parts?

Looking at the picture posted up on page 1, it is entirely possible the floorpans, frame rails, firewall, cowl, inner fenders and radiator support were salvageable. That would leave the roof, pillars, quarters, doors, trunk, hood, and fenders as replacements. Aside from the roof and pillers, I'm sure there are cars on here that have had that much metal in them replaced. With 80% of the VISABLE sheet metal replaced, are these cars considered a rebody? We see these types of cars advertised all the time as restored cars. If the structural parts are cut out and replaced with coil overs, ladder bars, aluminum panels, and a roll cage, is it still a Cuda? We see these cars for sale regularly also being sold as Cudas. Are they really?

I'm reposting on of my earlier replies because it is too big a gray area to call it illegal. Re-read my original post above and come up with an answer. Is there any legal precedence that says a vehicle must retain X% or more of its original sheet metal to still be considered original. Similarly, no one has answered my question about origin of that replacement metal either. Just because a number of poeple here feel it is a rebody, doesn't mean we are the judge and jury on this car. I think we could all agree that cutting the numbers off one car and reapplying them to another is the classic definition of rebody and is illegal. In this case, some one took a great amount of effort to resurect as much of the original metal as possible. Why does this also qualify as a rebody when original parts were still used? Why do the scenarios posted above not count also as rebodies?

[MJS73]

Again, what percentage or original steel must replaced for a car to be considered a rebody? 1%, 10%, 75%, 95%, where is this line drawn?

There isn't a line as it relates to sheetmetal.  Replacement of sheetmetal isn't the issue - the issue is transferring the VIN and fender tag from one car to another.  Creating phony build sheets and manifests further compounds the deception.

No one cares if you replace the fenders, doors, quarters, etc. because they're rusted.  Replace 100% o the sheetemetal, if you want.  There was an article in MCG a while back about a factory sunroof '71 Challenger that had ALL of it's sheetmetal replaced.  It was still an actual an actual factory sunroof '71 Challenger.

But transferring the VIN and fender tag from a desirable car to a less desirable car is just wrong.  Having it for your own use isn't really a justifiable reason, to me, either, because the car will be sold eventually and that's when the legal issues will come up.  Saying it's for your own enjoyment doesn't skirt the legal issue.

Mike

[ChallengerHK]

There isn't a line as it relates to sheetmetal.  Replacement of sheetmetal isn't the issue - the issue is transferring the VIN and fender tag from one car to another.  Creating phony build sheets and manifests further compounds the deception.

No one cares if you replace the fenders, doors, quarters, etc. because they're rusted.  Replace 100% o the sheetemetal, if you want.  There was an article in MCG a while back about a factory sunroof '71 Challenger that had ALL of it's sheetmetal replaced.  It was still an actual an actual factory sunroof '71 Challenger.

But transferring the VIN and fender tag from a desirable car to a less desirable car is just wrong.  Having it for your own use isn't really a justifiable reason, to me, either, because the car will be sold eventually and that's when the legal issues will come up.  Saying it's for your own enjoyment doesn't skirt the legal issue.

Mike

I think this is still exactly what HP2 is talking about.  How much of the original car must remain in order to call it a restoration? In an extreme example, if I start with the tranmission tunnel of a Hemicuda and build a car around it out of new / salvaged parts, can I call it a Hemicuda? I doubt there's a law in any state that spells things out to that level.  Laws to prevent rebodying are written to prevent pulling a VIN from one car and putting it in another, but the lawmakers (generally not being car people) didn't envision this type of scenario.

For that matter, I doubt we could come to a consensus ourselves. It would make an interesting poll: how much of a car must be used in order to qualify as a restoration?

[2TAGS]

the issue is transferring the VIN and fender tag from one car to another.  Creating phony build sheets and manifests further compounds the deception.

I call it a rebody because it retains maybe 5%? of its original parts.  But since the radiator support bone is connected to the frame rail bone which is connected to the firewall bone and thus the cowl bone -   - legal.  Biggest issue is the buyer knows exactly what they are getting.

[HP2]

There isn't a line as it relates to sheetmetal.  Replacement of sheetmetal isn't the issue - the issue is transferring the VIN and fender tag from one car to another.  Creating phony build sheets and manifests further compounds the deception.

This is exactly the issue. The vins were not cut out and transfered to another intact body. The surviving pieces, which included the vins, had the car rebuilt around them.

[ChallengerHK]

There isn't a line as it relates to sheetmetal.  Replacement of sheetmetal isn't the issue - the issue is transferring the VIN and fender tag from one car to another. 

As I re-read this it sounds like you're defining sheet metal as something like "visible, exterior body panels."  With a unibody car, though, it's hard to enforce that definition (or anything similar).  With this car, for instance, what if the floor pans, the front frame rails and inner housings were kept, and the radiator support and the cowl were straightened and used? Those are sheetmetal, and they have the original VIN stamped in them.  Is that a basis for saying that this car is the "original" car?

[JS23U0B]

I dont think the radiator support, and the cowl were straightened and used. From the pics, i dont think so. I think its more like, the numbers were cut out and grafted in. The car looks like a Cuda pancake. Ok, if what they did is not a rebody, what is the difference between this one, and the white vert from France. I guess its OK to swicth VIN#s as long as i dont steal the donor car. Gotcha...Roger That

[ChallengerHK]

I dont think the radiator support, and the cowl were straightened and used. From the pics, i dont think so. I think its more like, the numbers were cut out and grafted in. The car looks like a Cuda pancake. Ok, if what they did is not a rebody, what is the difference between this one, and the white vert from France. I guess its OK to swicth VIN#s as long as i dont steal the donor car. Gotcha...Roger That

Don't get me wrong.  I really don't care one way or another, because a) I'll never be able to afford something like that, and b) the value of a car to me is a lot more than the monetary figure that people put on it.  What I'm doing is supporting HP2's hypothesis that there is no definition of what constitutes a rebody, other than the wholesale lifting of a VIN...and that doesn't appear to be what happened with this car.  And, logically, if there is no definition, you might call it a rebody and others might not.

[MJS73]

I don't believe for a second that sheetmetal was replaced on the first car, I think it's a complete re-body (which I understand to mean transferring the VIN from one car to another).  To me, replacing 100% of the sheetmetal on the car DOES NOT make it a re-body, it makes it a restored car.  I don't really care, either, except that these cars tend to take up space in the Mopar magazines, space that I would rather see devoted to a non-forgery car.  Or, at the very least, as a regular story about a regular car, and not the sensationalized "12TH HEMICUDA VERT" type headline.  These cars range from being tribute or clone cars to outright forgeries (read illegal) and shouldn't be given the attention that they get.

But to answer your question, I really don't care how much metal is replaced, as long as it's the original car.  Switching VINs I where I lose interest in the car, because the sole intent in switching VINs is to make people believe the car something it is not, which does not appeal to me.  An to those who say that that's not the intent in switching VINs, I ask, then what is the intent?

Mike