The "SS United States" will maybe sail again?

[tonyb]

Give me a long car trip over air travel.

But what was once the province of the working class -- long trips by automobile -- is now something of an extravagance. It just plain costs more to drive cross-country than to fly. There's gas, there's lodging, there's all those meals on the road.

Airfare is a small fraction of what it was during the early years of the jet age. Flying was a BFD then. You got scrubbed up and wore a coat and tie so that you wouldn't stand out quite so much like the rube you were among those fancy-pants business travelers. These days, flying is like taking the bus.

 

[tonyb]

I think it varies according to state, but in most states the chassis of such a car, rather than the body, would be the defining factor. There are many thousands of ultra-customized Volkswagens that have been turned into everything from woods skidders to imitation Duesenbergs, but they're still Volkswagens in the eyes of the law.

There are, by the way, actual and legitimate Model T Fords, built by the Ford Motor Company, and titled as 2003 models. Ford built a short run of them that year to celebrate the company's centennial, using all-new parts -- some were bought from companies licensed to reproduce them, but the chassis and engines were built by Ford.

I'm still left to wonder how the state licensing authorities would regard an all-new "1965" Mustang, built on one of those approved-by-FoMoCo reproduction body shells. In such a case, there is absolutely nothing on that car -- aside from the ex-wife's wedding garter hanging from the rearview mirror -- dating from more than a couple of years ago.

 

[Bushman]

Well, we can all agree that the SS United States is the more graceful of ships. The modern cruise liner, not so much!

I wholeheartedly agree. Today's ships are floating hotels. They're a cruise that has everything that allows you to forget that you're on a cruise. These days, you have to ask yourself why bother going on a cruise at all if you could get the same experience at 6 Flags.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

No, you aren't; they do look top-heavy. But, having sailed on three of them since 2004, I can say they're surprisingly stable unless the seas are really rough.

Fun Times!

 

[Stearmen]

But what do you do with a "1965" Mustang built with of those reproduction body shells? How are those registered and licensed?

http://autoweek.com/article/sema-sh...roduction-body-shell-1965-mustang-convertible

They get a rusted out car, take the VIN tags, and crush the old car. Now, the new is old!

 

[Zombie_61]

But what do you do with a "1965" Mustang built with of those reproduction body shells? How are those registered and licensed?

They get a rusted out car, take the VIN tags, and crush the old car. Now, the new is old!

Bingo. As long as the Vehicle Identification Number on the car matches the basic description of the vehicle that the "authorities" have on file (i.e., "The VIN is for a 1965 Ford Mustang"), they get their money for the registration fees, and the vehicle meets the city/county/state/Federal requirements for being "street legal", nobody but the serious car collectors care if it's made from original or reproduction parts. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

 

[Trenchfriend]

I wholeheartedly agree. Today's ships are floating hotels. They're a cruise that has everything that allows you to forget that you're on a cruise. These days, you have to ask yourself why bother going on a cruise at all if you could get the same experience at 6 Flags.

Floating hotels?

Dumb "ocean-plattenbauten". http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=plattenbauten&FORM=HDRSC2

 

[tonyb]

They get a rusted out car, take the VIN tags, and crush the old car. Now, the new is old!

Okay. But any idea as to how one might license such a vehicle if he or she had no original 1965 Mustang title, and no original 1965 Mustang to sacrifice? Might it fly under some sort of owner-built certification?

I'd think that a vehicle manufacturer (Ford, for instance) would need some sort of special dispensation to make what is for all practical purposes a car indistinguishable from one it made generations ago, such as those Model T's produced in 2003 that Lizzie alluded to earlier, seeing how such a car would not meet safety and emissions requirements for new cars.

 

[tonyb]

They get a rusted out car, take the VIN tags, and crush the old car. Now, the new is old!

Car crushers are supposed to have title to the vehicles they crush, right?

Yeah, I know, there's a lot of wink-wink, nod-nod in that business (I've had 'em haul off an untitled car or two myself), but I'd think that if the title certificate survives but the car that originally wore it got crushed there was some bending of the rules.

 

[William G.]

There's a new federal law that allows titling of reproduction cars as a new car so long as the engine is emissions compliment. That should cut down on VIN swapping somewhat.

 

[tonyb]

There's a new federal law that allows titling of reproduction cars as a new car so long as the engine is emissions compliment. That should cut down on VIN swapping somewhat.

Thanks. Figured there must be something along those lines. Sounds like someone faced reality and drafted laws that reflect it.

It can't be more than a relative handful of vehicles anyway. Those willing and able to undertake such a project aren't to be found just anywhere.

 

[Stearmen]

Back on topic, even though there have been several boats that have crossed the Atlantic faster then the SS United States, she is still the official holder of the Blue Ribbon Trophy. The other boats, did not have a full complement of passengers, and they did not do a East and West crossing!

 

[Stanley Doble]

I'm still left to wonder how the state licensing authorities would regard an all-new "1965" Mustang, built on one of those approved-by-FoMoCo reproduction body shells. In such a case, there is absolutely nothing on that car -- aside from the ex-wife's wedding garter hanging from the rearview mirror -- dating from more than a couple of years ago.

You would have to buy a 1965 wreck or shell, and use the registration and body tags. It could not legally be registered as a 2016 because it does not meet the latest safety and pollution standards.

 

[tonyb]

You would have to buy a 1965 wreck or shell, and use the registration and body tags. It could not legally be registered as a 2016 because it does not meet the latest safety and pollution standards.

That's what Stearman said as well (use the VIN tag and title from a real '65 Mustang). But how does this jibe with what William G offered a couple-three posts up from this? His post leaves the impression that these one-off owner-assembled reproductions are at least partially exempt.

 

[William G.]

You would have to buy a 1965 wreck or shell, and use the registration and body tags. It could not legally be registered as a 2016 because it does not meet the latest safety and pollution standards.

Under the new law, they don't have to meet safety or state emissions regulations, only federal emissions requirements — provided it's a replica of a vehicle 25 years or older.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/12/08/new-law-vintage-cars/

That's what Stearman said as well (use the VIN tag and title from a real '65 Mustang). But how does this jibe with what William G offered a couple-three posts up from this? His post leaves the impression that these one-off owner-assembled reproductions are at least partially exempt.

Here's an article on the law, it was part of a highway bill: http://www.autoblog.com/2015/12/08/new-law-vintage-cars/

It may not be as practical for someone building a one-of in their garage, I don't really know about that part. I have a friend with a body shop who is looking to set himself up as a small volume car maker and start building reproductions in the next year or so — I'm learning about this through him, to be honest.

 

[Stearmen]

I have to admit, I was wrong! Last night, after logging off, I thought to myself, I bet no one will be painting pictures of the modern ships. Wrong, and they don't even use the most flattering angels! Some one must like these paintings?

 

[3fingers]

As much as I'd love to see her saved I don't see it happening for all of the reasons given above. Plus the fact that if you did a man on the street survey only a small number could even tell you that they had heard of the ship.
When people don't know or care about the local history, whether it be events or tangible objects, in the place where they have lived for decades it is hard to motivate them to care about a "rusty old abandoned ship".
As was pointed out earlier, the members here and those whose views are similar are not a reliable indicator of public opinion.

 

[Trenchfriend]

What's the real current status?
On the net, there are rumors, that the renovation and converting-into-hotel process is in trouble?

 

[Edward]

So, is that '63 MGB made entirely of components of much more recent manufacture really a '63 MGB? I say no, even if it is indistinguishable from a "real" one via anything other than laboratory analyses. Hell, it is probably a better car, seeing how the unibody structure had yet to suffer fatigue.

If all the parts are completely new, it's a real reproduction. Unlikely you could sell it as an MGB, except with permission of the trade-mark holder - the German owners of Rover / MG / et al.

Of course, the year you state is important. Real MGBs were oly made up until 75. Those rubber- bumpered mostrosities made from 75-80 were not MGBs, whatever British Leyland claimed.

I think it varies according to state, but in most states the chassis of such a car, rather than the body, would be the defining factor. There are many thousands of ultra-customized Volkswagens that have been turned into everything from woods skidders to imitation Duesenbergs, but they're still Volkswagens in the eyes of the law.

Presumably once monocoque contuction techniques started to come in - from the early 60s with Britishcars, anyhow - the body would effectively take the role of the chassis, there being no separate chassis as such. But yeah, it will vary entirely by local law. Those VWs you mention herei n the UK would have to be regisatered as kit cars, though they raised the requirements for those to such a degree i recent years that the whole genre has lagely died off because it became too difficult to meet all the regs, effectively maknig it a rich man's hobby... and rich men most often buy the 'real thing'.

There are, by the way, actual and legitimate Model T Fords, built by the Ford Motor Company, and titled as 2003 models. Ford built a short run of them that year to celebrate the company's centennial, using all-new parts -- some were bought from companies licensed to reproduce them, but the chassis and engines were built by Ford.

I remember those. I've often thought that if someone could make one of those or something similar sympathetic to mod cons and safety, then make it veyr neviro-friendly (eledctric motor, perhaps) it could perhaps become quite a 'thing'.

I wholeheartedly agree. Today's ships are floating hotels. They're a cruise that has everything that allows you to forget that you're on a cruise. These days, you have to ask yourself why bother going on a cruise at all if you could get the same experience at 6 Flags.

The appeal for me is to one day have the time to take the boat aross to NYC. I'd love to arrive in the harbour fo the spectacle.... though mostly it'd be about having a week whee I could decompress, with nowhere to go but to enjoy the luxury hotel. I generally can't justify the cost of a high end hotel because when I manage to go away on holiday, I'm there to see the place - the hotel is nothing more than a dry, secure and clean place to sleep. Actually, we're thinknig of gettnig the boat hoem fom NYC sometime, a slow way to relax for a week and get home with no jetlag (ship time gets moved on one hour every night, so by the end of the week you're back to "normal".

Okay. But any idea as to how one might license such a vehicle if he or she had no original 1965 Mustang title, and no original 1965 Mustang to sacrifice? Might it fly under some sort of owner-built certification?.

Speicif home-build rules in the UK - even down to there being a specific letter on the number-plate that idnetified the car asa kit. It's all largely died off now, though, as they raised the requirements beyond the capability of the average home-builder.

 

[GHT]

Certain "vintage" cars can be built entirely from new parts. British Motor Heritage at one time offered an entirely new MGB body. Perhaps they still do.

There's a company called: "Frontline Developments" who do just that. https://www.frontlinedevelopments.com/vehicle/mg-le50/ In the UK a car to be classified as original, must have the original matching numbers.

The term, matching numbers, is a term used in the collector car industry to describe the authenticity of collectable or investment quality car. Number matching generally means that a particular car still contains its original major components or has major components that match exactly the major components the car had when it was new. The appearance of a number matching car should be such, it's all but impossible to distinguish it from the original car.

The car's Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN,) stamped numbers, can match the original components that were on the car when it was new. The VIN should also tell a buyer that the car's registration number, (licence plate,) is the one issued to that vehicle when it was sold new.

So if either money is no object or you have the technical know-how: