GT and GTHO go up in shed fire

[R0BD0G]

so would it as you say be illegal for the original manufacturer to reproduce them.. im just trying to get my head around why ford cant say make some new ones

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Kermit 73

so would it as you say be illegal for the original manufacturer to reproduce them.. im just trying to get my head around why ford cant say make some new ones

Just think about the legal ramifications of it....... (not to mention Ford's total lack of interest in it) it opens pandoras box for all kinds of shifty's..
compliance plates, like chassis/engine stampings are deemed legal identification and cannot be tampered with reproduced or altered.

[billkara]

Hey guys, got some pics of the cars. Mods delete if these have been posted before. Thnks

[billkara]

Anyone up for a second hand shaker?

[GTP290]

what happened to the shaker scoop, was it still on the car at the time of the fire?

[XYGTReplica]

What a shame these cars were destroyed by fire. I remember the Yellow Ochre car well. It was a very nice car. I hope that both cars can definitely be restored to their former glory.

[ratrace]

WAT A SHAMEZ

[billkara]

Maybe it was a fibreglass shaker?

[Gammaboy]

Clearly the fire was hot enough to melt the alloy shaker top.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Gammaboy

Clearly the fire was hot enough to melt the alloy shaker top.

Given that the fire was that hot, those shells must be completely stuffed...

[billkara]

i agree, most of it is all junk now... sad sad day

[apolloxbgt]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Exactly.. You could do a ground up resto/rebuild from a twisted rusty shell for about 100-120K.... it will be far cheaper for the insurance company to repair it than write it off.... the car is "worth" far more than its repair cost even if its a smouldering crumpled mess.

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Some positive news... I heard last night from a friend of steve's that both cars are going to be repaired/restored.

I'm sorry,but if you don't honestly believe this do you???

Ever heard of a STATUTORY WRIGHT OFF ???

Those cars are gone forever,being that they were insured they will be logged as stat wright offs,and so they should.
There is no way those shells would retain anywhere near the strength they did from factory.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by apolloxbgt

I'm sorry,but if you don't honestly believe this do you???

Ever heard of a STATUTORY WRIGHT OFF ???

Those cars are gone forever,being that they were insured they will be logged as stat wright offs,and so they should.
There is no way those shells would retain anywhere near the strength they did from factory.

yep, your correct, its big shame though.

[mik]

brings a tear too the eye

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by apolloxbgt

I'm sorry,but if you don't honestly believe this do you???

Ever heard of a STATUTORY WRIGHT OFF ???

Those cars are gone forever,being that they were insured they will be logged as stat wright offs,and so they should.
There is no way those shells would retain anywhere near the strength they did from factory.

What on earth are you talking about????

The cars in question are going to be repaired from what i was told last week, im also told the insurance company is being most helpful and co-operative with helping and assisting with organising the repairs...

[apolloxbgt]

You don't know what a stat wright off is??

When a car is damaged so badly in an accident,or much more commonly by fire or water,that it can never be repaired back to what it was,it is written off and never able to be reregistered.

This serves 3 purposes,the first being that it keeps as many unsafe cars off the road as possible,and secondly to stop any unsuspecting buyers being ripped off with a car that should never be on the road,and lastly,to stop rebirthing of cars.

Sorry for the mis spelling,it should obviously be stat write off.

Judging by those photos,these cars are very clearly stat wright offs.

[apolloxbgt]

I don't know what qld's roads dept is called,here is vicroads version:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/...gistration.htm

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by apolloxbgt

You don't know what a stat wright off is??

When a car is damaged so badly in an accident,or much more commonly by fire or water,that it can never be repaired back to what it was,it is written off and never able to be reregistered.

This serves 3 purposes,the first being that it keeps as many unsafe cars off the road as possible,and secondly to stop any unsuspecting buyers being ripped off with a car that should never be on the road,and lastly,to stop rebirthing of cars.

Ok... you need to take a step back and look at this logically..
We're not talking about a $10K AU forte here.. take the phase 3 as an example, its probably modestly worth $600k prior to the fire, it was insured, lets say under insured for $350K.... Why on earth would an insurance company write off a car and pay out $350K when they can spend, worst case scenario 1/3 of that doing a nut and bolt ground up resto??
It makes no economic sense to write it off...

[apolloxbgt]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Ok... you need to take a step back and look at this logically..
We're not talking about a $10K AU forte here.. take the phase 3 as an example, its probably modestly worth $600k prior to the fire, it was insured, lets say under insured for $350K.... Why on earth would an insurance company write off a car and pay out $350K when they can spend, worst case scenario 1/3 of that doing a nut and bolt ground up resto??
It makes no economic sense to write it off...

See post #77
Edit:
Ok,just rereading that myself I found this line:
Vehicles recorded on the Written-off Vehicles Register are late model (not more than 15 years old) motor vehicles less than 4.5 tonnes and motorcycles.

As I said,this is for vic,not sure what qld's exact rules are,but those cars can never be restored to pre fire condition,and I would never accept anything less.

[56L]

I suppose if the owner was to be worried about the cars being written off he could choose not to go through insurance and pay for the resto himself and still get big money and still be way ahead!

If it was me i wouldnt have said a word to no one

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by apolloxbgt

See post #77

Read my earlier post... i'll bet the insurance company view it as repairable...
None of us know how badly its damaged, just from the pictures ive seen worse restored, rightly or wrongly this vehicle is too expensive (to the insurance company) to write off.

Lets wait and see....

[gcg2503]

I think Apollo isnt focused on the cost-benefit side of things, but more so the safety element of restoring these cars.

If there is doubt as to the safety of the cars getting restored then I would tend to agree.

Dont get me wrong I would rather these get restored too, but only if safe to do so...This area isnt my forte (not to be confused with an AU Forte ;) ) but I would be surprised if the shells are in what is deemed a safe state - hopefully I am wrong

[Nikked]

Ok... you need to take a step back and look at this logically..

the shell is stuffed, it would need to be 'remanufactured' more so then repaired, the fire was hot enough to melt alloy, the whole shell would be buckled. a full repair would hit around $300 000 anyway (bulk labor $100 000 at least,new parts all round etc)


then there is no compliance plates, build plates...etc

[apolloxbgt]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Read my earlier post... i'll bet the insurance company view it as repairable...
None of us know how badly its damaged, just from the pictures ive seen worse restored, rightly or wrongly this vehicle is too expensive (to the insurance company) to write off.

Lets wait and see....

If the owner were to push the point,I would bet the roads authority would not,that is the whole point of these kind of laws.

How would you feel if you bought either of these cars as genuine articals,only to find the history the hard way.

Would your logic also apply to a new top end merc,or supercar,of course not they still make them.But the lawmakers don't care,those cars could not be restored safely without reshelling them.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Nikked

the shell is stuffed, it would need to be 'remanufactured' more so then repaired, the fire was hot enough to melt alloy, the whole shell would be buckled. a full repair would hit around $300 000 anyway (bulk labor $100 000 at least,new parts all round etc)


then there is no compliance plates, build plates...etc

buckled shell? 300K for a resto..? : you really are out of your depth on this (and most) topics arent you.....

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by apolloxbgt

If the owner were to push the point,I would bet the roads authority would not,that is the whole point of these kind of laws.

How would you feel if you bought either of these cars as genuine articals,only to find the history the hard way.

How would the roads authorities even know? if the rego is maintained its "business as usual"..
I understand what you're getting at, but its a private matter between the owner and the insurance company.

[billkara]

judging by the link posted by apolloxbgt, i think these cars will not be registered again.

Statutory write-off
A vehicle that is recorded as a statutory write-off after 1 May 2002, cannot be re-registered and the vehicle identification number (VIN) cannot be reused.
A vehicle will be recorded as a statutory write-off if it is a total loss and so severely damaged that it should not be repaired. Only certain parts from statutory write-offs may be used to repair other vehicles. The following document provides a guide for the use of parts from water and fire damaged vehicles.

and

2 Fire Affected Structural Components
If a vehicle has been damaged by fire then only structural components that have not been affected by heat may be used to repair
another vehicle unless, a report from a metallurgists, stating that the components have not been adversely affected by heat, is
provided.

BUT... if 4Vman is right and the car is repairable, again, i am guessing that MOST of the parts are not re-usable. so for example, say every part of the car is disregarded as they are not re-usable, and all thats left to reuse is the chassis, can we still consider this car an "original" phase 3?

looks like another classic example is gone :(

[apolloxbgt]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

How would the roads authorities even know? if the rego is maintained its "business as usual"..
I understand what you're getting at, but its a private matter between the owner and the insurance company.

If I owned those cars I would not accept them being repaired,if the owner does he is a fool.

[RIPGMH]

Originally Posted by Nikked

the shell is stuffed, it would need to be 'remanufactured' more so then repaired, the fire was hot enough to melt alloy, the whole shell would be buckled. a full repair would hit around $300 000 anyway (bulk labor $100 000 at least,new parts all round etc)


then there is no compliance plates, build plates...etc

Essentially everytime you panel beat a body component you weaken it. That doesn't mean you write it off. I hope you never have a small house fire, by the way where did you come up with the 300k?

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

buckled shell? 300K for a resto..? : you really are out of your depth on this (and most) topics arent you.....

No you seem to be, 100k ground up re-build on a shell that will be buckled (to some sort of extreme) I use shell usely thats no meaning one rail will be two foot higher then the other, but every single panel will be out of shape.

labour will be a big chunk, every panel worked pack into shape, interior retrimed...paint/primer/sealers...parts... list gets bigger, and as you said its not a 10K AU.

Even ground up restos from compete cars then to be very expensive.