Illegal Coronet?

[RustyRatRod]

somebody **** in your wheaties lately? You've been a real dickhead for a while. No offense intended, of course.

Let me explain. Us dickheads in Georgia are only required to use a bill of sale on cars from I think it is 82 and prior. I maybe a year or two off.

If you happen to have a title, great. But, if the car has EVER been registered without a title in Georgia, you cannot get a title. No how, no way. So, Georgia only requires a bill of sale. PERIOD.

That car is not original any longer. All that would matter in Georgia when they ran the numbers would be two things. One, that there are no liens against the car and two, that the car is not stolen. Other than that, I could get that car registered in Georgia in less than one minute SIGHT UNSEEN, be it from out of state, or out of country. All I need is a valid bill of sale.

I could even explain the discrepancy with the VIN and they would be fine with it. When it is regarding something that old, that has changed hands as many times as that car probably has, Georgia is very lenient regarding small mistakes.

It's pretty stupid, IMO, to hold old cars to the same standards as newer ones since they have been around much longer and are subject to these type mistakes......heck, back then the mistake could have happened right at the factory since both cars probably went down the same assembly line.

So that's fine. I'll be a Georgia dickhead. But that's how it is around here. Had I called you that, I would have at least gotten a warning, if not an infraction. Normally, I would fire back. Had you talked to me like that in person, I would have broken your nose. But you're not worth the trouble over the internet.

 

[Oklacarcollecto]

A 1966 Charger is a different animal than that car.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I've seen non XX vin Daytonas that are legit. Would warrant some proper 2nd vin investigations, but I do know that as you go back, before '68, Chrysler wasn't always on top of things with vin numbers and such.

Remember, there are lost and found areas on forums dedicated to relocating factory misplaced build sheets. We pulled a 318 build sheet out of the back seat of a 1 owner AAR 'Cuda a few months ago. It happens more often than you'd like to think.

If the numbers on the vin (actual final run numbers) match the run numbers on the vin on the body, it's a factory mishap. I've seen it twice.

I saw a 1966 Belvedere that had the VIN indicating it was a 4-door. Only problem: it was a 2-door! A 66 Coronet with a Charger VIN (or vice versa) would not surprise me at all. Chrysler was concerned with getting them built & sold...everything else was secondary!

 

[Jarlaxle]

I have posted before about some of the screwy abbreviations on titles in my title collection. Heck I had one trailer listed as a util on the title, then listed as a camper on the registration. If the car has had numerous title transfers I could easily see the model changing.

Yep! I had a Shelby Charger...the title (RI) I got when I bought it listed it as a "DODGE SHELBY". (Though the REGISTRATION listed it as a "Charger.") The one I got when I tagged it (also RI) listed it as a "DODGE SCHGR". The dude I sold it to got a title (from CT), listing it as a "DODGE OMNI". Same VIN, same car...just different DMV drones!

 

[Jarlaxle]

But still, as of right now, all you have is the seller's word it is a 66 Charger VIN. It is entirely possible he is WRONG. Get the VIN then you'll know. Also one last thing. In 1966 the Charger was based off the Coronet. It is entirely possible it was a factory error.

Wasn't a 1966 Charger, at least internally at Chrysler, technically a "Coronet Charger"? (Like the 1970 Duster and early Barracudas were Valiants.) If so, yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if someone at Lynch Road/Hamtramck/wherever hit the wrong key when making a VIN tag!

 

[adriver]

It's an (almost) 50 year old Frankencar. It is what it is, numbers be damned.
RRR summed up Georgia and common sense.
However, I know for a fact that another state will take my Georgia "registration" and charge me for a title in that state if I move there.
Georgia could make money on requiring a title and make more money on older cars. But they don't. Except this.
Georgia has recently passed a law to do away with the yearly tax when you get your tag. and make "new" car purchasers pay a one time tax based on the sale price of the car, a "title transfer tax". Buy a 20K dollar 69 Charger? You pay a lot of tax on the purchased based on the bill of sale amount.
But the cars you have now are grandfathered and you just keep paying your small yearly tag tax on an old car. Like 12 dollars.
My opinon on the title question is that it is overblown.
The title simply says who in the state you are in owns the car. (Liens)
If you have a bill of sale on a old car,it's not reported stolen in your state, the state will register it, and there are no issues which make you question it, a title is nice. But not necessary.

Weird stories of car deals gone bad to follow I'm sure.

 

[chryslerfat]

The way I understand it is Charger parts along with a charger VIN was put on this car. If that is the case it is illegal to swap a VIN in any state.

 

[Oklacarcollecto]

The way I understand it is Charger parts along with a charger VIN was put on this car. If that is the case it is illegal to swap a VIN in any state.

You are not alone, that is how I understand it also.

 

[gunbunny]

This is why it's illegal to sell VIN tags and titles. You end up with something being represented as something its not. In this case, he chose the the path of least resistance.
Problem is there may be someone who ends up with a car that isn't what they think it is. Hopefully that wont be anyone here.
No real reason to get our panties in a wad over a car we're not going to buy.

 

[67 Power Wagon]

Well wasn't the Coronet and the Charger built from the same frame and body back in 66 and 67? SO maybe this car, has parts from a charger in it that the guy who had it couldn't get for a rebuild.... (Won't be the first time I've seen this)

Wasn't till the "Charger" got its very own "body" for when the "Coke Bottle" shape came along, in 68......

I could be wrong, worth checking it out to see if it is legit, but otherwise......

 

[Frankie]

Searching Craigslist for cars and came across this '67 Coronet 500. Yes the front seats are ugly

I agree. They are ugly, and I don't like all the "racing" crap in the car, either.

Car looks like it has a Fuel Cell which kind sucks. But the biggest pause is the whole VIN for a '66 Charger?

:wack:

Again, I agree. Any street car with a fuel cell is an automatic turn off for me. I don't like slap sticks, ratchet shifters, or even reversed valve bodies, for that matter.

Not to say that they are "wrong", mind you. The just don't appeal to me, and are on my list of things to avoid when considering a car.

 

[oldmopardude]

I think the biggest problem here for me with the car is it just looks like it goes too DAMN fast!
50mph and I get the shakes!! HA HA