Why does every thread here devolve into a "Real" vs. "Replica" argument?

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by CSX4815

Well... here's my AZ title...

And in CA, that would considered fraud and if more info is needed in this area, I believe it was the CA Assistant AG (Attorney General), "Mortgester" who used to post here and warn CA Cobra owners about falsifying titles to say a Cobra replica was produced in 1965. Obviously they're not.

In CA, they're all called SPCNS or specially constructed vehicle.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

And in CA, that would considered fraud and if more info is needed in this area, I believe it was the CA Assistant AG (Attorney General), "Mortgester" who used to post here and warn CA Cobra owners about falsifying titles to say a Cobra replica was produced in 1965. Obviously they're not.

In CA, they're all called SPCNS or specially constructed vehicle.

Double whammy. My car was originally titled in CA as a 1965 Shelby Cobra. Maybe tomorrow I'll try to cut out the pieces and parts like above without giving too much personal info.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Double whammy. My car was originally titled in CA as a 1965 Shelby Cobra. Maybe tomorrow I'll try to cut out the pieces and parts like above without giving too much personal info.

You don't have post it. We all know they exist and existed. Not new news. Early replicas of various types, including Cobras, got through the DMV and they've been hunting them ever since. Those cars titled as 1965's that weren't actually built in 1965 are considered illegal in CA. And that includes other cars like Porsche Speedster replicas too.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

You don't have post it. We all know they exist and existed. Not new news. Early replicas of various types, including Cobras, got through the DMV and they've been hunting them ever since. Those cars titled as 1965's that weren't actually built in 1965 are considered illegal in CA. And that includes other cars like Porsche Speedster replicas too.

When is early? Give me a date. The only valid response has 4 digits

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

When is early? Give me a date. The only valid response has 4 digits

The only valid response is 4 digits? ooooooh I'm so afraid of you Tony.

Date of what? When they started prosecuting people for illegal 1965 registrations? Look up the posts here from Morgester, from the CA AG's Office. If you still want to challenge me just because your old CSX had a 1965 registration then go ahead and I'll post the CA state law from the DMV website and CA Civil code along with Morgester's postings.

Your title from CA proves zippo to me. It's not the law, but that doesn't mean that don't get things wrong occasionally either. Post yours, let's see it. You can't register it today in CA without committing fraud or a DMV clerk making a big mistake.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

The only valid response is 4 digits? ooooooh I'm so afraid of you Tony.

Date of what? When they started prosecuting people for illegal 1965 registrations? Look up the posts here from Morgester, from the CA AG's Office. If you still want to challenge me just because your old CSX had a 1965 registration then go ahead and I'll post the CA state law from the DMV website and CA Civil code along with Morgester's postings.

Your title from CA proves zippo to me. It's not the law, but that doesn't mean that don't get things wrong occasionally either. Post yours, let's see it. You can't register it today in CA without committing fraud or a DMV clerk making a big mistake.

Blah blah blah. What year did they start hunting them down? I'm betting mine is after that since it was very recent

[jhv48]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

When is early? Give me a date. The only valid response has 4 digits

I could be wrong, but I believe that when California passed the sb100 smog exemption in 2001, it gave all kit cars a way to be registered (and taxed) based on the year they were completed rather than the year of the engine or body style. So, a replica built in 2008 coukd be registered as a 2008 SPCNS, not a 1965 cobra. It was California's way of collecting larger fees and allowing non 60's vehicles to be correctly registered. It is considered fraud if this policy is violated. However, if a vehicle was previously registered LEGALLY (not misrepresented in any way) in another State as a 1965 cobra, that registration would be transferred and honored by Calif. when coming into the State.
Not sure if previously registered Calif. kit cars were grandfathered in. I don't think so.
Anyhoo, it seems to be a gray area. I have heard of local law enforcement walking through car shows checking license plates against registration and impounding vehicles that were incorrect. If it were me, and I owned one of these "1965" registered cars, I would go through the sb100 process and change my registration to comply with current California laws. I wouldn't want my car impounded and then have to go through the hassle of trying to prove it was correctly registered. No telling how much damage would be done by the tow truck or the impound lot.

[NewYorkGuy]

[quote=jhv48;1366946]I could be wrong, but I believe that when California passed the sb100 smog exemption in 2001, it gave all kit cars a way to be registered (and taxed) based on the year they were completed rather than the year of the engine or body style. So, a replica built in 2008 coukd be registered as a 2008 SPCNS, not a 1965 cobra. It was California's way of collecting larger fees and allowing non 60's vehicles to be correctly registered. It is considered fraud if this policy is violated. However, if a vehicle was previously registered LEGALLY (not misrepresented in any way) in another State as a 1965 cobra, that registration would be transferred and honored by Calif. when coming into the State. ...QUOTE]

yup. yup, that's how Cali Cops busted/arrested Hot Rod Builder Boyd Coddington.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by jhv48

However, if a vehicle was previously registered LEGALLY (not misrepresented in any way) in another State as a 1965 cobra, that registration would be transferred and honored by Calif. when coming into the State.

The old "full faith and credit" between states. However, I believe CA stopped that some years ago with SB811. According to Robert Morgester in 2009, there was a bill that essentially stated that CA will honor the VIN and title, but they will not accept the year as 1965 because then the loophole would allow a ton of polluting SPCNS cars into CA. And CA didn't want a massive loophole, besides the 500 exemptions each year, for our "gross polluters."

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

"SECTION 1. Section 4750.2 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

4750.2. Notwithstanding Section 4304 or 4750.1, if the
application for registration of a vehicle previously registered
outside this state is for a specially constructed vehicle, as defined
in Section 580, the vehicle is subject to emission control and
inspection requirements applicable to the same calendar year that the
vehicle was originally constructed as a specially constructed
vehicle, unless otherwise modified by Section 44017.4 of the Health
and Safety Code."


CA: out of state SPCN and emission testing