Continuation CSX a "Kit car"?

[ZOERA-SC7XX]

It seems every state is different. I also have been tempted to try to register my car as a 1966, but if the DMV gets wise to these 'gray titles', it may turn out to be an owners' worst nightmare (including my own). Just look back at what happened to Boyd Coddington in CA. a while back.
Sure, it's nice to have vintage plates, but the actual year the car was manufactured should be on the title, according to the DMV. I won't risk having my car impounded or worse. All it'll take is for your state to hire someone who's hip to what's going on with these component car titles and just like that, the guidelines will change. Same goes for the street rod replicas.

[Naumoff]

Originally Posted by ZOERA-SC7XX

It seems every state is different. I also have been tempted to try to register my car as a 1966, but if the DMV gets wise to these 'gray titles', it may turn out to be an owners' worst nightmare (including my own). Just look back at what happened to Boyd Coddington in CA. a while back.
Sure, it's nice to have vintage plates, but the actual year the car was manufactured should be on the title, according to the DMV. I won't risk having my car impounded or worse. All it'll take is for your state to hire someone who's hip to what's going on with these component car titles and just like that, the guidelines will change. Same goes for the street rod replicas.

How long is it going to take California to fall into the ocean. At least there government.

[A-Snake]

Originally Posted by ZOERA-SC7XX

It seems every state is different. I also have been tempted to try to register my car as a 1966, but if the DMV gets wise to these 'gray titles', it may turn out to be an owners' worst nightmare (including my own). Just look back at what happened to Boyd Coddington in CA. a while back.
Sure, it's nice to have vintage plates, but the actual year the car was manufactured should be on the title, according to the DMV. I won't risk having my car impounded or worse. All it'll take is for your state to hire someone who's hip to what's going on with these component car titles and just like that, the guidelines will change. Same goes for the street rod replicas.

Bingo! We have a winner. These are not vehicles produced in the 60's.
Just like most of the steel or glass '32 Fords out there. They are new special construction vehicles made to simulate the "original" cars body style with modern engineering.
Yes, the police need to know that the car looks like a ’32 Ford or a ’65 Cobra but it is not a ’32 or ’65 vehicle.

[Nedsel]

The foregoing makes me wonder: what is SEMA pushing with respect to their efforts to have non-original cars (like '32 Fords built with all new parts) titled as "the car they most closely represent" ? Does the title say that the car is in fact a facsimile of a '32 Ford (or '57 Chevy or whatever) and does it indicate the year the car was constructed, or does it actually describe the car as something it is not, i.e. a "1932 Ford roadster" ? If the former, that makes sense to me, but if the latter, it strikes me as a good way to help some attorneys earn some money a few years down the line.

[Bernica]

Ok, so I have CSX 4250 with the original MSO. signed by Carrol Shelby, indicating it is a 1965 Shelby Cobra. It's titled under SB100 as a 2002. Now I'm thinking of just leaving it that way instead of challenging DMV for a 1965 title, in light of Boyd's unfortunate events.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Bernica

Ok, so I have CSX 4250 with the original MSO. signed by Carrol Shelby, indicating it is a 1965 Shelby Cobra. It's titled under SB100 as a 2002. Now I'm thinking of just leaving it that way instead of challenging DMV for a 1965 title, in light of Boyd's unfortunate events.

I hope this comment was said in jest, or was sarcasm, because it doesn't matter what Carroll Shelby puts on the MSO, it's not a car built in 1965, at least by CA standards. Good luck at the DMV with that proposition. The SPCNS registration might undermine your argument.