CA: New criminal cases filed

[mr bruce]

Once a car recieves a VIN number it is that cars number for life (entered into the FEDERAL database) Some one with deep pockets will have to fight CalDot on this, using the reasoning of the permanent VIN number. The California emmission standards opens up another issue. Maybe they will just ban ALL kit/streetrod/ pre(insert year) cars.

[Excaliber]

The VIN number is not gaurenteed for life by every state, as the example of my ERA shows. It HAD a Calif vin, replaced by a Hawaii vin! Another guy here HAD an Arizona vin, replaced by a Hawaii vin.

[MaSnaka]

This does in fact sound like a loophole in titling an out of state car. And doesn't this bring us full circle back to why the SB100 was started in the first place. To weed out the smog exemptions? So then why is California tracking down these 1965 titled replicas as being fraudulent?

When I was shopping for my Cobra I saw one of these 1965 registered replicas (17 digit vin)and was also shown a bill for insurance on the same car for a rediculously low anual amount (approx $200/yr). The car was appraised at near 50K. This all seemed very legit at the time (2004).

Even with my A plus multi vehicle policy I pay more than triple that amount for a considerable lower valued Cobra titled 1997 with the SB100 number.

I know this is a regitration issue but the way it's registered and titled does affect the cost of insurance. I would prefer the 1965 title for this reason alone. It's way cheaper every 6 months.

I'm curious if there is any discussion regarding this issue?

Thanks,
John

[MaSnaka]

And I had a Nevada VIN replaced with a California VIN.

[RedBarchetta]

Originally Posted by MaSnaka

And I had a Nevada VIN replaced with a California VIN.

Add a Texas VIN replaced with a California VIN.

[JohnWorthing848]

As long as registration and title regulations are different from state to state these problems will continue. My SPF #848 is registered as a first time 2004 Specially Constructed Vehicle in California under SB100. If I move to AZ are they going to ask me to smog it as a 2004 model? Good question huh! If states are supposed to respect the chain of registration .... RIGHT!

I just took delivery of a 2008 Denali XL from a dealer client of mine in NV. I am required to get a smog certificate on the vehicle, yes, actuallty take the brand new 2008 vehicle to a smog station and have a physical inspection to make sure I did not alter the smog system on the way to CA from NV. I have done this several times over the years, bit of an inconvenience but no big deal.

What this does is insure that a citizen who is asking the state to title and register a vehicle is doing so correctly. This hopefully insures the integrity of the proccess. When I look at a car for sale and the owner shows me a title and reg I want to know that it is accurate.

Our cars are kit cars, manufactured replica's, home built in some cases. They will never ever be on an equal footing with a manufactured vehicle. To try and draw comparisons to federal vin laws and such is silly. This has become a symantic circle jerk for some of you. I don't give a damn what your state says your car is, it is what it is. Do the best you can where you live.


Our situation in CA is what it is.. If the SB100 limit is not increased and you don't get a number you will be forced to have your cars pass smog or sell them.

Sad but true!

[Woodz428]

Originally Posted by JohnWorthing848

What this does is insure that a citizen who is asking the state to title and register a vehicle is doing so correctly.

That process, alone, implies that everyone is presumed guilty until proven innocent.....not quite how the founding fathers envisioned it. It is, for me, a Constitutional issue and NO rationalizing will alter that. This is not the only case like it, there are many in other areas besides the Cobra world. The only way to stop the progression to tyranny is resist it at all venues.
We have had several inquiries from people in Ca. about our Coupe, the 1965 listing (as required here) automaticly puts a cease to the discussion.
The states that have accepted the titling process Illinois uses, and the numbers are growing, require the car be titled as the year it represents as well as the manufacturers name. So a Deuce, that has a "Rod Bods" body would be a "1932 Rod Bods Ford roadster". I see no deception. Cars that are not replicas are covered in the second paragraph of registration form.
The fact that these cars are so few in comparison to the major numbers of general vehicles, and travel considerably less than most everyday transportation illustrates, to me, an over use of govt.(read;yours and mine) funds in an area that will have little effect on the real issues that Ca. and the nation need to address.

[Randy Rosenberg]

Originally Posted by Woodz428

...We have had several inquiries from people in Ca. about our Coupe, the 1965 listing (as required here) automaticly puts a cease to the discussion.
The states that have accepted the titling process Illinois uses, and the numbers are growing, require the car be titled as the year it represents as well as the manufacturers name. So a Deuce, that has a "Rod Bods" body would be a "1932 Rod Bods Ford roadster". I see no deception. Cars that are not replicas are covered in the second paragraph of registration form...

SEMA did a great job on lobbying in Illinois for this change - http://www.semasan.com/main/main.aspx?id=60246

Read more about what SEMA has done has done recently in Florida - http://www.semasan.com/main/main.aspx?id=62294

...Importantly, kit cars and replica vehicles will be assigned a certificate of title bearing the same model-year designation as the production vehicle they most closely resemble.

Florida joins Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington as states that have enacted similar bills into law...

...In addition, the measure exempts street rods and customs from a range of standard equipment requirements and emissions controls (only that equipment required in the model year that the vehicle resembles)...

I wish that they would do that here in CA!

Here's a link the latest that SEMA has done in CA - http://www.semasan.com/main/main.aspx?id=61557 - read it carefully, as this is the very same "smog by year of block" that Morgester is leading us to believe will be ending soon.

Originally Posted by Morgester

Note BAR will be changing the process shortly. Outside the SB100 process they will no longer test to the year of the block. They will instead test to the year of build. This means that you must meet 2007 standards if you do not have SB100.

Additionally, I've never heard anyone acquire successful smog exemption (or smog every two years) to the year of the block, when a "crate replacement" block is used.

In the second case, for specially constructed vehicles without a Senate Bill 100 sequence number, the only emissions controls required are those used when the engine was originally manufactured. For example, a Cobra kit-car using a 1968 351C Ford V8 would require all emissions equipment originally required for that model year engine. A dune buggy upgraded with a '91 L79 TPI GM V8 would require all emissions equipment used on that engine. More generally, if a configuration precedes 1966, no exhaust emissions controls would be required. If the configuration precedes 1961, no PCV system would be required. If a range of model years applies to any particular engine configuration, vehicle owners will have the option to select the model year of emissions controls to be used. Further, according to the BAR, new and rebuilt "crate" engines fall into this "range of model years" category. As an example in this category, the use of a Chevrolet 5.7L ZZ4 V8 engine in a replica of a '32 Ford roadster would require emissions equipment used found on the first 5.7L engines used in '67. Finally, and in some instances, vehicle owners may be required to provide engine information to aid in the identification and inspection process.

SEMA has a good track record for their work in other states - they need to focus on CA in order for us to see any changes.

[Excaliber]

Well so much for a Vin being a 'Federal' thing. States Rule!

[Trueoo7]

Just found this posted on AOL tonight under "What DMV Won't Tell You"

3. "When it comes to car theft, we're part of the problem."
There's another way criminals take advantage of flimsy DMV car records: "VIN cloning," a kind of vehicle laundering. A stolen car's vehicle-identification number is switched with that of a junked car, and a clean title is obtained from the DMV. To combat this practice, the 1992 Anti-Car Theft Act authorized the creation of a database, known as the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System, which allows state DMVs to verify a car's title, theft and damage history before issuing a new title. But 15 years later only 30 states belong to the network, and those that don't, including California and Illinois, are havens for car thieves and chop shops. "Until all 50 states participate, the system is full of holes," says Rosemary Shahan, of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, a nonprofit consumer-advocacy group.

[vanoochka]

I'm wondering, if California replaced Nevada and Texas VINs with California VINs, why did they not replace my Arizona VIN with a California VIN? The supervisor was pretty clear on what he thought the correct procedure was - which was to use the Arizona VIN.

Any thoughts?

[Excaliber]

Could be like the inspector I went to here. The guy actually hesitated while pondering WHICH Vin to use! Heck, he might as well have flipped a coin. Perhaps the next guy along got the Calif (Texas, Nevada, AZ) vin. Others have simply gone to the local DMV here and registered as a 1965 Ford Cobra straight up, no inspection, no SPCN designation, nothing, just change out the title and drive on. Seems to be a roll of the dice and is dependant on the person doing it at that time, even in California.

[RodKnock]

I've been curious about this topic for a while. If someone were to buy a Pond or Genesis block which have C5 casting stamps, with the present laws, could someone pass smog certification with the 1965 rules, at least for the time being? Of course, this assumes that the rest of the engine would be smog legal for 1965 as well. If this hypothetical engine were to pass and the law is changed subsequently to remove the year of engine rule, then would this engine and car be grandfathered under the old law?

[RodKnock]

Well, that answers my question above. Thank you.

[MaSnaka]

Sooooo...No SB100 required on those now legal 1965 CA titles?

[Igofastr]

Morgester,

If I interpret #3 above correctly, outside the SB100 process, new cars will no longer be allowed to title by year of the block or appearance of the car. In other words, other than through SB100, every single component car will have to meet modern (ie year of registration) smog standards. Is that a correct interpretation?

[Igofastr]

For the rest of you, it has always bothered me that somehow the BAR and DMV have somehow been empowered to make law...if they get to arbitrarily define what a law means, they are essentially making law.

[vanoochka]

Mr. Morgester,

Thanks for taking the time to provide the information. Here's some more from me:

While you were writing, I was at my local DMV office to begin the SB100 process for my car. Again, I caused quite a stir and - after waiting 45 minutes for them to complete their caucus - I was told my car doesn't even qualify for, nor does it require an SB100 # as it titled as a 1965 Ford.

Yikes!

By the way, I paid the state tax due on the full and actual purchase price when I registered the car - every penny.

Van

[Bx1]

Originally Posted by vanoochka

Mr. Morgester,

Thanks for taking the time to provide the information. Here's some more from me:

While you were writing, I was at my local DMV office to begin the SB100 process for my car. Again, I caused quite a stir and - after waiting 45 minutes for them to complete their caucus - I was told my car doesn't even qualify for, nor does it require an SB100 # as it titled as a 1965 Ford.

Yikes!

By the way, I paid the state tax due on the full and actual purchase price when I registered the car - every penny.

Van

Very interesting... I reg. my Cobra as a 1965 Ford as that is what the previous owners had done... I paid ALL fees and TAXES In FULL I still plan to get the SB100 title next year. As of this moment I am reg. as a '65 Ford.
well, at least my car is...

[vanoochka]

Originally Posted by Bx1

Very interesting... I reg. my Cobra as a 1965 Ford as that is what the previous owners had done... I paid ALL fees and TAXES In FULL I still plan to get the SB100 title next year. As of this moment I am reg. as a '65 Ford.
well, at least my car is...

I'm sure there is a way to work around the DMV advice I was given. The lady at the DMV gave me a number to call in case I wanted to escalate the issue. That number was changed (in Sept 2005!) to a new number, and that number was only for questions on vanity plates. The voicemail message on the new number also gives an "866" number, but that rings busy, over and over.

I'm beginning to feel like a character in a Joseph Heller novel, but am determined to get my (previously legally registered as 1965 in Arizona) car a California SB 100 number, so Catch 22 here I come...

Van