Shelby CSX 4000 Registration Nightmares
 

This is done

Steve,

If I was in your shoes, I would ask a moderator to delete this thread.

The fact is ,it's not a 1965. As a rule ,it is best to title cars by the rules/regulations of the state you are in. Although we pay for the roads we are not in charge of them. Maybe the beaurocrats think you were washing a title.

"The fact is ,it's not a 1965."

There is the crux of the debate! Different states determine the year of a title on a kitcar different ways. Some say it is by year of origin (when you bought it and got an MSO), some say by year of completion (first inspection) and some say by year of motor. Fla was the latter when I lived there. Regardless of when you bought or completed your car, if it received a 1965 sideoiler, it was a 1965. I do not see how Virginia can override a legal title from another state like this. I DO however see Shelby Auto's concern about bogus titles showing up with Shelby's name on them. In this case, I cannot see how VA can legally rescind a Fla title that is and was always legitimate. If this can happen there will be a backwash of title challenges whenever some idiot in any DMV wants to cause a stir.

It's a much grayer area with a CSX4000 car, than it is with a replica Cobra. Usually with Cobras, the DMV is looking to correct incorrect or illigitimate VINs, incorrect years, and incorrect or missing parts (as far as "year based" safety and emmisions goes). Being that it's a Shelby automobile, they can't dispute the VIN. And it varies greatly state by state, as far as what equipment the vehicle must have. Most states want to title car as the year it was built, but then they also want the car to meet the standards of that same year. And we all know that's pretty much impossible. These cars are copies of a car built in the 60s, they naturally will not meet any modern standards. As far as the year goes, in the case of the CSX4000 cars, the MSO from the manufacturer SPECIFICALLY states the model year as 1965.

So you have the original manufacturer saying the car is a 1965, but we all know it wasn't built in 1965. On the flip side, we also know the car doesn't come close to meeting the new vehicle standards of the year it was actually built.

Sal, remember that Shelby had all those FRAMES and PARTS lying around from 1965...:eek:
I think what kicked this into a tizzy was Shelby or Cobra in the title. My car carries a 1965 plate but is a "Ford" "2 door" on the title. And yes, it was all done legally many years ago. :LOL:

If the title isn't fake, how can one state override another's title? Might be time for a lawyer to get involved.

Each state makes up it's own rules on vehicle registration. Some are more flexible than others.

Moved to the appropriate forum.

It's a phuking replica. :p

Actually, Virginia has a new law that lets you register your replica as the year it was made to represent.

.

Wow what a concept!

In NH a car will carry the MSO stated designation. However, my car originated in MA who at the time of title listed the car as a Cobra Rep 1985 using a hod-rod redefined 7 digit- MA VIN. The car was originally a 1982 with #CCX062482 which DMV of MA had taken away and destroyed. Yes, my CCX tag was removed and destroyed.

My opinion (everyone has one), any car built by individual or factory should carry the year of manufacture on the title. States differ 'YES' but if Sal was to sell his CSX how could he say 1965 CSX4XXX Cobra? Built by Shelby or not? Is a completely built factory built AKL a 1965? Can I install a 1965 V6 in my wifes 2007 Ford Fusion and call it a 1965 concept car? Come on guys, lets be real about this.

Once again, if the car was made in the 60's and carries a CSX2XXX or CSX3XXX it is an original Shelby Cobra. Anything less than that is a replication of the original; and yes a Real Cobra to degree some even a Real Shelby Cobra none the less replication thereof....

Bet this will spark the never ending debate.... BTW: Sal your car is a fantastic example no slight there.

Let the fun begin! :D
Jeff

titles
 

A comp;etely factory built AK or AKL will have a 17 place vin tag on it already and will (or should be) registered as the year it was built. Mine is registered as an "86 and in NJ that gives me a pass on emmissions and DOT for "86 as long as I agree to 3000 miles per and accept "collector car" status.

Hawaii law DEMANDS the vehicle will be registered as the year it REPRESENTS. You have no choice in the matter, thus my ERA is a 1965 Cobra model, first SOLD in 1965. However, it is also noted as a 'Street Rod' on the title, indicating it's 'replica' status I would assume. The Hawaii assigned VIN number is "ERA154".

Maybe I'm missing something. Who really cares what year your car is titled as? I don't get it. I'm in VA and mine is registered as a 2006 A&C Roadster, I don't car that it's not registered as a 1965 Cobra (Replica). From what I understand some VA localities have emission inspections based on the titled year, mine doesn't. If this is the reason, then I understand, but most of the time I see this discussed the emissions topic doesn't come up. Now VA has changed the rules, but has placed restrictions how much you can drive your car.

you answered your own question...emissions...no smog test for a 1965 Titled here in Texas...1996 Titled car would be a disaster.

cwilson, I know what you mean! I just can't understand why someone would go to the bother to register their replica as a 1965 Cobra, who you think your going to fool with that one? :LOL:

But I've learned how important that 'year' thing is in some states. I would certainly never commit fraud in achieving a 1965 'title', but it's a good thing for some folks.

Makes zero difference in Hawaii one way or the other...

In NY the car is registered as the year it was built, but the emissions go by the year of the motor. Makes sense. Wouldnt we all rather the sticker say 1965.......

So lets say your replica is stolen in NY, an all points bulletin is broadcast.

"Be on the lookout for a Silver 2007 Cobra. Mustang, I guess, uh, SPCN? Oh wait, says here street rod?" Yeah, that makes a lot of sense when the police have no clue what the heck there looking for! Good luck recovering your vehicle. :D

In some states you are allowed to display "vintage" plates from the same year that the car is titled as. That's the only reason that I wanted the 1965 designation, to complete the replication look. As far as wanting to fool somebody, I get asked all the time if the car is an original (some even assume it is) and I always tell them no, it's a very good replica!

Unfortunately, since this is a "REAL" kit car with the Shelby name, the owner ended up getting hosed by CS in another attempt to stick the broom handle up the a$$es of all the people who own cars which resemble the ones he dismissed as "obsolete" years ago when they were only worth a few thousand bucks and when he said he didn't care who copied them. :LOL:

I contend that it's not the original cars which made CS famous with people born since the 1950's; it's the replicas. Heck, there were only a handful of originals and who ever sees one today? Nobody, unless they go to an event like the BRIC at Road America last weekend. The only reason Joe Average knows about Cobras is because they've become more widely known due to the number of replicas. Otherwise he wouldn't know a Cobra from an Austin Healey 3000 from a Mercedes 300 SL from an MGA. Shelby conceived the car, used it while it suited his needs, then walked away when it no longer was profitable. Now that WE'VE made it mainstream famous, he's interested again, and he's happy to source cars from wherever and sell them as "REAL" Cobras. :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

Apparently, in addition to presiding over a company which takes customers' money with little interest in providing a product in any kind of a timely manner, he's also not too worried about sticking it to 'em again when they go to register their cars. Of course this isn't precedent-setting: he did the same thing when he "found" all the "original" frames from which he built the continuation cars which are un-registerable in some states. :rolleyes:

Good thing he's selling cars. If he were selling securities, he'd probably be in freakin' jail. :p

I wonder whether Hormel ever sued CS for selling "Chili"... :eek:

Lowell